Welcome to Social Anxiety Horror

September has rolled in and hasn’t decided which season it should be yet. This means pre-spooky season is in fully swing. Halloween candy lines grocery store shelves, the craft stores have fake pumpkins galore, and pumpkin spice nonsense as far as the eye can see.

Naturally, I’ve already started hearing buzz around horror movies.

Yesterday, at art club, we all had an in-depth discussion around which horror movies we prefer, which we find comforting, and which we won’t touch with a ten foot pole. Naturally, the recently released Speak No Evil, came up. If you’ve managed to escape the trailers for this one, let me briefly explain the premise: an American family meets an English family on vacation, the English family invites them to their house in the middle of nowhere, and procede to be as creepy as possible. It’s technically a remake of a Dutch movie by the same name or also known as The Guests (likely made because Hollywood thinks Americans are allergic to subtitles) with a few changes.

It’s also an example of the subgenre social anxiety horror (a subgenre so rare that it doesn’t seem to have a TV Tropes page).

Normally, I’d have ascribed this movie as just a psychological horror, but there a few elements that push it into the lesser recognized social horror subgenre. TV Tropes defines psychological horror as “subgenre of horror that aims at creating horrific, paranoiac, suspenseful, or unsettling effects through in-depth use of mental and emotional states or psychological conditions.” From what I’ve come to understand, social anxiety horror differs in the use of social norms to drive the building tension. 

I was first introduced to this subgenre by the YouTube video essayist Super Eyepatch Wolf. His hour and twenty minute video covers several examples of social anxiety horror including literature (Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery”), movies (The Guests which I am using instead of the other name to differentiate), and real life social experiments preformed on actual people. As I mulled over the concepts brought to my attention in the video, I came to realize that social anxiety horror is one I am easily disturbed by.

Just because I enjoy horror and have published multiple short stories and poems in the genre doesn’t mean that I love every aspect of it. My preference for horror typically contains some element of supernatural, cosmic, fantasy, or science fiction in it. This is so I have a buffer between what I’m enjoying through media and the possibility of something happening in my real life. I’ve never seen an extra terrestrial (doesn’t mean they don’t exist), but I have had a stalker. 

The closer the horror is to a possible experience, the less likely I am to enjoy it. I recently wrote a blog post about my thoughts on Anna Biller’s gothic romance/horror (horror is the section I found it in at Barnes & Noble) “Bluebeard’s Castle”. I found the book difficult to read at times (spoilers: not just because a cat dies) because I found my anxiety was being triggered. The main villain of the story uses psychology and social norms to manipulate the protagonist, which set off my flight responses. Putting the book down and walking away for a few days was the only way I could finish the book. 

The same response also happened to me for the horror novels “Such a Pretty Smile” by Kristi DeMeester and “A History of Fear” by Lucas Dumas (I made a post about this one). Though those novels contain an element of the supernatural, they also play on social anxiety fears. I could handle the dog creatures and flying devils. I couldn’t handle the homophobia and creepy situations with (fictional) people who were more or less real.

And that’s probably because I realize how easy it is to fall into a bad situation through the manipulation of social norms (see previously alluded to stalker). I’ve been in situations with other people that started out as seemingly normal and then escalated to terrifying. 

Thankfully, I’ve never been physically hurt in these situations, but they have taken a mental toll. It’s likely one of the many reasons I hate dating so much. I feel a lot more comfortable in a group social setting than going off with a person I just met for a one-on-one.

So let me know what you think of social anxiety horror? Should it have a TV Tropes page? What movies, shows, books, stories, or games do you think fit as examples of the subgenre? Did you go see “Speak No Evil” or watched the original “The Guests”? Let me know in the comments.

In you enjoyed this post (or it really pissed you off) please like, share, and or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope y’all like hearing from me. 

Until the next week.

Welcome to the Horrors of a Wax Museum

 Have you guys every been to a wax museum? 

I’ve gone to one...maybe two in my life time and I wasn’t that impressed. Seeing fake celebrities that creepily smile at me with soulless glass eyes wasn’t all that fun. I did kind of like the Chamber of Horrors portion because it looked really fake,  it even that wasn’t as cool as some of the decorations that would go up around my neighborhood at Halloween.

However, one of my favorite classic horror movies takes place in a wax museum. House of Wax, the 1958 starring Vincent Price, makes a great case for visiting wax museums. Then again, that might just be the amazing Vincent Price’s charm and ability to camp everything to an eleven out of ten. He is the star of this movie for a reason and every scene he is in is fantastic - no part of the scenery goes in chewed!

Now, it’s well known in the horror community that this movie got a remake in 2005. It’s basically an in-name-only remake and not even Supernatural’s Jared Padalecki or Paris Hilton at her peak can save it from being terrible. I’ve seen it a couple of times (the first thinking it was the Price version) and was left annoyed and confused.

But what’s less well known is that the 1958 version is also a remake. In 1933 Warner Brother’s released Mystery of the Wax Museum. What’s cool about this movie is that it’s pre-Hays Code. Without the moral demands placed upon it, the movie can get away with characters having questionable motivations, doing illegal activities without facing (narrative) consequences, and not being subjected to silly censorship rules.

Honestly, the Hays Code is a pox on classic movies and story innovation. The number of stories that had to be changed when they were being adapted for the big screen is long and includes the likes of Rebecca, The Bad Seed, and even Pride and Prejudice. Sex was a big NO during the hay’s code period - which is why the famous train coming out of a tunnel became a symbol of sex in movies. Also married couples weren’t even allowed to share a bed on screen. 

I can’t list all the annoying stipulations of the Hays Code in this post (I’m sure I’ll go through it eventually), but if you’re curious, you can read more on the TV Tropes page. Needless to say, the sticky fingers of the Hay’s Code is all over the 1958 version. It’s made even more obvious compared to the 1933 version.

The 1933 Mystery of the Wax Museum was considered lost for a long time. This happened to a lot of movies in the early days of Hollywood. Most classic silent films have been lost to history and it’s a miracle that we still have the ones we do. Fortunately, the film was rediscovered in one of the producer’s collections and recently remastered.

And I was fortunate enough to catch it on this week’s Svengooli!

For those of you unfamiliar with the METV weekly show. Svengooli hosts a science fiction or classic horror movie every Saturday at 8:00 PM ET. He’ll talk about the history of the movie, who is in it and other movies we’ll know the actors from, do some silly games, and even sing a song. 

I learned most of my information on Mystery of the Wax Museum from him. He even pointed out a lot of the similarities between the 1933 and 1958 versions. Some of the scenes really were redone shot for shot or the dialogue was a direct carryover. One of my favorite scenes is in both movies and it’s when the coroner’s are wheeling a body through the morgue, a body pops up, and the mortician goes “you’ll get used to it, it’s the embalming fluid makes them jump.” Because clearly embalming fluid causes a body to just sit up on its own.

 However there were a lot of differences. A lot of them were due to the Hays Code. Some were because the 1958 was shot to be in 3D - a gimmick that is still driving up movie tickets today.

The biggest difference between the two films is when they are set. The 1933 version takes place in the 1930s, whereas the 1958 version is set at the turn of the 1900s. The main leading lady in the 1933 version, Florence (played by  Glenda Farrell), is a reporter chasing a story to the point where she doesn’t want to involve the cops in case someone else poaches the scoop before her. Whereas the 1958 version mostly follows Sue Allen (played by Phyllis Kirk), whose character in the 1933 version was Florence’s friend Charlotte Duncan (played by the famous Fay Wray). The Florence character is instead merged with another to become Cathy Gray (played by the original Morticia Addams herself Carolyn Jones), Sue’s flirtatious roommate.

Why are the characters changed around? 

There are a few reasons. One is that the 1958 version streamlines the 1933 movie’s plot with the changes. There’s no longer a side plot with an accused boyfriend of a murdered heiress, Florence’s character isn’t snooping around to catch the latest scoop, and the Charlotte/Sue character gets a lot more developed in the 1958 version. Honestly I kind of miss the Florence character. She added a lot of humor to the movie.

Where the Hays Code comes in is within the details. Both Sue and Charlotte are targeted by the evil bad guy, but Sue is saved by her boyfriend and a couple of conveniently places cops instead of a snooping Florence, a concerned Charlotte’s fiancé, and a gaggle of police officers. I found Charlotte’s character in the 1933 version to be dull and bland compared to Florence, whereas Sue has character...and a very strong moral compass (which is probably what saves her). Sue doesn’t flirt, she doesn’t go out all the time, and she finds can-can to be scandalous. Cathy is a flirt and bares more than a passing resemblance to the 80s slasher trope that insists that the sexually active characters must die.

Oh yes, I’m saying that the Hays code directly influenced 80s slasher horror tropes. I don’t find it a coincidence at all that the less conservative, more freethinking Cathy gets axed, while conservative and repressed Sue is saved at the last second. Florence might have jumped a foot in the air when faced with a moving box (honestly I would have too), but she’d have also beaten  the crap out of the 1933 bad guy. Charlotte just kind of stands there and screams as the wax mask falls off big-bad’s face.

They also changed one character from having a drug problem to being an alcoholic. I’m not sure how one is worse than the other, but Svengooli assures me that that was a Hays Code change. Also the cops openly talk about meeting up with bootleggers in the 1933 version, so the police were allowed to be corrupt in 1933, but not in 1958 as far as I can tell.

I’m not going to sit here and tell you guys that one film is better than the other. I like both for different reasons. They both have flaws. I much prefer the friendship between Sue and Cathy over the sniping shared between Charlotte and Florence. Sue and Cathy seem to genuinely like and care for each other, which makes Cathy’s death and Sue’s motivations all the more emotional. 

Finally, these films are far from perfect. There’s the period typical sexism, the city of New York is far too homogeneous to actually be the city of New York, and I really have to question those ending scenes.

Both of the films have really weird endings. After Sue is saved in the 1958 version, the cops, Sue, and Sue’s boyfriend are at the police station joking about a wax head growing a long beard. It ends with all the characters laughing and there’s little emotional fallout from Sue nearly being killed by hot wax. In the 1933 version, Charlotte is saved and then it cuts to Florence finishing up her story and her editor (who has been a bit of a jerk the whole movie) proposes. Florence accepts the proposal despite having spent most of the movie flirting with a nice rich guy and squabbling with the editor. I legit yelled “no don’t” as this was happening.

Oh well, maybe this is how Hildey and Walter got together the first time in His Girl Friday.

If you’re interested in classic horror movies, Vincent Price, or ore-Hays Code films, I’d recommend checking both movies out. They’re cool to compare and contrast. And further proof that Hollywood will remake anything.

Oh and about the 2005 version...I’d give it a pass.

Will I ever go to another wax museum? Maybe if it’s a Groupon deal. The art might be amazing, but I have a hard time being around wax figures.

Until next week.

If you enjoyed this post (or it really pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope y’all like hearing from me.

Welcome to a Horror Revival

Movie award season is underway and I couldn’t help notice a lack of nominations for a particular genre: horror. I might be a little bias, I happen to write a lot of horror stories, but there have been a number of decent to good horror movies made over the past few years. I think some more than others deserve recognition.

Movies like Get Out, Midsomer, Us,  and the VVitch had amazing acting, were visually stunning, and  some amazing costumes (especially the VVitch). The new version of Suspiria was a little long and there were a few questionable choices, but the updates they made were creepier and more relevant than the original (the original is still my favorite because it is one hell of a trippy nightmare fairytale). I love watching The Ritual on Netflix on a quiet night and The Babadook along with Hereditary are emotional rollercoasters.

A lot of good horror movies came out this past decade, but few got the recognition I think they deserved.

The VVitch - currently on Netflix

I enjoy a good horror story for a number of reasons. Sometimes I need a creepy tale to get me thinking of what I might do in a similar situation. Other times it makes me think about the real life situations these stories are based on. Candyman has a lot of great commentary on class inequality and policing in minority communities (hopefully the remake will go a few steps further). Jacob’s Ladder, one of my all time favorite movies, has a lot of accurate and horrific facts about the Vietnam War. Maybe that’s why I like it so much - it’s a deadman’s dream rationalizing his senseless death.

The one type of horror I’m not super fond of is overly violent gore nor found footage. It’s one thing if it’s sparing and tastefully done, but the torture porn genre that emerged after the rise of Saw is not my cup of tea. I prefer atmospheric that causes a creeping tension with few releases of emotions. Minimal jump scares  and not too much found footage.

The remake is the better series of movies, but the original holds a special place in my heart.

I do have a few exceptions. If the story is good and I can watch the movie without feeling sick to my stomach, I usually enjoy them. The first Saw movie, though incredibly gory at times, has a lot of good twists and an excellent story. The found footage movie As Above So Below has amazing symbolism and use of layered story telling.

Unfortunately, horror movies and stories have a reputation for being terrible (and for good reason), but some of cinema’s greatest movies are horror. The Shining, Pan’s Labyrinth (yes I count this one as horror), Alien, and Psycho are all amazing and have had a major impact on today’s pop culture.

Even the more campy horror movies have merit. I love pretty much anything with Vincent Price in it and Christopher Lee is probably my favorite Dracula, but these movies aren’t always masterpieces and their shoe string budget occasionally shows. The Fog, Sleepy Hollow, The Woods, and even Halloween might have a few big plot holes and leave the viewer asking more questions than the movies probably intended, but the visuals, aesthetic, acting, and music really make the viewing enjoyable.

Evil witches and plants...yes please!

I hope that this next decade ushers in a new era for horror stories and movies. I want more movies with creepy atmospheres and lots of suspense. I want a good soundtrack that takes me out of the ordinary and let’s me live in a dream within a dream. I want gothic houses to explore and monsters that are never seen, but always lurking in the shadows.

An evil fairytale brought to life.

Bonus points if the stories have just enough answers to not confuse the watchers, but doesn’t hold their hands either.

Give more movies like The Woman in Black, Cabin in the Woods, and The Lighthouse. Plant the stories in both reality and in dreams. Let the mind wander and think.

And nominate some of these movies for awards.

If you enjoyed this post (or it really pissed you off) please, like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope y’all like hearing from me.

Until next week.

Welcome to that One Movie Obsession

If there’s one movie that I have un-ironically fallen in love with in recent years, it’s the 2006 “The Woods”. I have no idea if this is an obscure movie or one that fell to the wayside because audiences didn’t like it (but critics mostly liked it -it’s fresh on Rotten Tomatoes), however I love this movie.

And not just because Bruce Campbell has a minor role.

“The Woods” is one of those quasi horror movies that isn’t so much scary as it is a fairy tale with horror elements. Much in the same way that the original 1977  “Suspiria” or the more recent “Pan’s Labyrinth” and "Sleepy Hollow", it’s a mix of terrifying concepts, beautiful imagery, and dreamlike storytelling.

Fairy tale elements can be found throughout the movie. The setting is at an all girl’s school located deep in the woods (hence the  title) in the 1960s. There’s a sense of mystery, some of the girls start to go missing, there’s a mean girl who bullies our protagonist, and there are witches. 

If the location weren’t enough to indicate that we’re in a fairy tale, the music certainly does. It’s haunting, a little off putting, and at times down right creepy. However, I do like the use of “You Don’t Own Me” peppered throughout at key moments. It helps reinforce the overarching themes of individuality and rebelliousness that embodies the protagonist.

However, I can see why movie goers might not have been drawn to it. The story is a little confusing and inconsistent at times. Motivations aren’t always clear outside of the protagonist. And some characters seem to know more than they should (though that could be because of their undefined “gift”).

Yeah a lot of the girls in these films are “gifted” or, in lame man’s terms, psychic, telepathic, or otherwise magically inclined. How do these gifts connect to the larger world? Never explained, they just have them. It’s established early that the protagonist, Heather, has some sensitivity to psychic phenomena, but her real talents are revealed during an emotionally charged scene between her and the headmistress.

Honestly, I love picking a part this movie. The ending, though entertaining, doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Some of the earlier information is contradictory to what ends up happening, but it also isn’t clear who is a reliable source of information and who isn’t. Furthermore, the inciting incident of the course is a little confusing and not explained well.

These issues could easily turn off the average movie goer. 

I freaking love them. All of the ambiguity has the wheels in my head turning over and over. I’ve got a few theories and ideas. Personally I think the woods the school was located in were always evil and possessed the witches or acted as their puppet masters. I also like to think that they only needed to “feed” the curse at certain times. Then again, “feed” probably isn’t the right word, but provide new hosts to continue what the woods want. 

And my favorite theory is that Heather from “The Woods” is Sarah’s deceased mother from “The Craft”. They have some similar powers and ticks that make me wonder if the actress who played Heather was a fan of “The Craft”. Plus the timelines for the character’s ages align.

All the proof I need that Heather is Sarah's mother

Seriously, check out this movie and tell me that Heather couldn’t potentially be Sarah’s mom. It’s on Amazon Prime right now.

I love fairy tale dreamlike quality of some movies. There’s a reason I go back to “Suspiria”, “Sleepy Hollow”, “Pan’s Labyrinth” and “The Woods”. They remind me of a time when the woods were filled with imagined monsters and there were still mysterious places to be explored with danger around every corner. They transport us from reality and into a realm where anything is possible.

This is also likely why I enjoyed “Sleep No More”.

If you enjoyed this post (or it really pissed you off), please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope you guys like hearing from me.

Until next week.

Welcome to the Patterns in Hindsight

How many TV shows or movies have you guys watched and known exactly which characters aren't going to make it to the end? Or what about the crime shows that have you figuring out who the killer is in the first 15 minutes?

I've been watching a lot of Murder, She Wrote lately, and it has a fairly formulaic structure. Within the first few minutes a problem is introduced and the wacky group of characters are introduced. It's in these moments that I can usually pin point whose murder J B Fletcher is going to be solving. It takes me another twenty minutes or so to figure out who did it. 

The killer and the person killed are nearly always introduced at the very start of the show.

This formula can be seen in a lot of other crime or mystery based dramas. Heck, even my beloved Scooby Doo uses it. It's rare when we have no idea who's under the mask. 

It's even easier to pick up these hints when watching multiple episodes at a time. Until I actually started binge watching Murder She Wrote, I almost never picked up on the subtle clues that were peppered throughout, but once you know what to look for (usually a throw away line about some important piece of information that the character in question shouldn't know about) that leads to picking out the killer way before the big reveal. 

Horror movies follow a similar patter that has now been deconstructed to death (let's conclude that this pun was intended). Cabin in the Woods is the most famous modern example. The iconic Scream even has a scene where the character Randy lists all of the rules that keep you alive in movies. Since Randy follows the rules, he gets to live to the sequel.

Re-watching these movies, I start to pick up on the hints of what led to a person dying. Either they broke one of the cardinal rules of horror movies ("don't have sex, don't drink or do drugs, and never, ever say you'll be right back") or they made a mistake that led them right to the killer.

Real life isn't entirely like horror movies or 60 minute mystery shows. The hero isn't always around to stumble across a dead body and piece together the clues like a prefect puzzle. Real life is messy, chaotic, and even senseless.

However, that doesn't mean that there aren't patterns that don't emerge when horrible events do occur. Humans like patterns, our brains are built to recognize them (even when they aren't there, but that's another blog post). It could be a person's search history, the posts they tweet on Twitter, the groups they like on Facebook, or if they're on an FBI watch list. 

These patterns that our brains detect have helped our species survive and thrive. It's why some people are extremely intuitive and know when to listen to their "gut". It's why we sometimes get a creepy feeling that tells us that danger is around in an otherwise perfectly normal setting.

I sometimes feel like Sid and the cameraman trying to tell Randy, who's screaming at movie Jamie Lee Curtis that Michael Myers is right behind her in a movie, that Ghost Face is behind him with a knife. I can see the danger, but there's nothing I can do about it. I can't change a story that's already been written.

But isn't that how some of us who watch scary movies or murder mysteries feel when we know what's about to happen? We've figured out who and where the killer is and can do nothing to help the victim. We're just watching events unfold on a screen, wishing, praying that our favorite characters will survive. 

We know the patterns and unless we're willing to do something about them, the horror movie killer will keep coming back.

If you liked this post (or it really pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope y'all like hearing from me. 

Until next week.