A Symphony of Horror

Taking a look at the Dracula film which isn’t about Dracula…

In the spirit of Halloween, I thought it would be fun to take a look at one of my favourite classic horror films. My first exposure to Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror was at an open day for a local college (for the non-UK readers, I mean the two-year college that comes between regular school and university). I wandered into a film class presentation while taking a look at the campus, and on the projector was a truly chilling image. On a silent screen accompanied only by eerie music, a young man hid in his bed. Through a castle door, a creature glided along a corridor towards the viewer. It was a strange bald man, with long fingers and wide, piercing eyes. Those eyes stared through the screen straight at me, and I was mesmerised. It was such a striking image that even though I didn’t have time to stay and watch the rest, the film stuck with me. I asked the teacher what it was called and eventually tracked it down so that I could watch the entire thing.

Since studying at film school I’ve learnt much more about Nosferatu and the genre it belongs to, but even before that I considered it an amazing piece of early horror. I never expected to find a silent film from the 20’s particularly scary, but it turns out the right imagery can leave an impact without the need for dialogue or sound effects. Nosferatu is a German expressionist film, which means it is part of a genre of early films made in Germany that rely on heavy contrast and shadow to create striking images and fantastical stories. These films usually focus on symbolism and are usually heavily stylised. The style lends itself well to a certain style of horror. While Nosferatu isn’t particularly gory or suspenseful, especially to a modern audience, it does leave a huge impact. Many of the shots are bold, and between the excellent makeup and heavy shadow, as well some interesting locations, each frame seems to stay with me long after I watch it.

The film has an unusual history. The director, F. W. Murnau wanted to shoot an adaptation of Bram Stoker’s book Dracula. However, Stoker’s widow wouldn’t sell him the rights and so he simply altered the plot slightly and renamed all of the characters. As such Count Dracula became Count Orlok, and Johnathon Harker became Thomas Hutter. If you have watched any film versions of Dracula and/or read the book, the similarities are easy to spot. Stoker’s estate still noticed the film and didn’t think the changes were enough, so after a legal battle most of the copies of the film were destroyed. The only reason this film has become such an influence is thanks to a few copies surviving and making their way to the USA in 1929. Personally, I’m very glad that someone saved the film. It might be copyright infringement but it is nonetheless a damn good silent film.

The cinematography is not as surreal as other expressionist films like The Cabinet of Dr Caligari, but the emphasis on shadow and contrast leads to some excellent gothic imagery of castles, empty towns and dark corridors. Murnau seems to want to make the scene around Orlok seem normal and comforting; shots of nature and comfortable houses. This creates greater horror when we are taken to the castle, filled by clocks with skeletons and other strange architecture. The makeup for Count Orlok is brilliant. The strange tufts of hair, the pointed ears and teeth and the heavy eyeshadow all frame a strange face that is downright unsettling to look at for too long. Max Schreck, the actor playing Orlok has amazing eyes that seem to be tailor made for this kind of role. He stares unblinking and often seem to hold other characters spellbound. If you wanted to argue that the film is not a rip off of the book, the character of Orlok is where you could make your case. Unlike the intelligent aristocrat of the book, who looked mostly human with a few strange differences, Orlok is a monster. He looks like some kind of hellish rat who never takes off his clothes. His character is a leering sadist who spreads like a plague to Hutter’s home town to give his curse to his wife. Schreck is fantastic in the role. His expressions seem almost inhuman, twisted in hatred or hunger. If there is one plot hole in the film, it’s the fact that Thomas Hutter doesn’t run the hell away the second he sees the Count for the first time.

“May I take your coat sir?”

The film is hugely influential, having several remakes and reimagining over the years, including one directed by Werner Herzog and a fun meta horror starring Willem Dafoe. It demonstrates how important stylised and gothic imagery would be to many films in the horror genre and in particular, vampire movies. The film created a creeping tone and unnerving atmosphere in a way that no other medium could achieve. Apart from the style and genre, Nosferatu would also have an enduring legacy in vampire fiction. Before this film, vampires could go out in the sunlight without dying. Dracula himself had no issue walking down the street on a sunny afternoon, albeit without his powers. After Nosferatu ended with the Count being destroyed by the light of dawn, most vampire fiction, including future adaptations of Dracula would make sunlight the vampires most potent weakness. I think that tells you just how inspiring this film has been over the years.

This strange silent film is a testament to visual storytelling. It has survived through the years because the imagery it presents is striking and refuses to be forgotten in a hurry. Thanks to a superb performance from a character actor, unnerving makeup, strong emphasis on lighting and an eye for unsettling scenes, Nosferatu is a unique experience to watch. If you’ve had enough of vampire films that lean into the sexy image that has become so prevalent then I have just the film for you. You definitively shouldn’t find Orlok sexy, although I won’t judge if you do (I will). Happy Halloween everyone!

Why I love Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Why I love the Joss Whedon show… in spite of it’s name. 

Joss Whedon is a unique writer. As a director he is most famous for the first two Avengers films, as well as Cabin in the Woods. He has made countless films and television shows loved by nerd culture, including Firefly, which I have talked about on this blog before. Perhaps his most long running and career defining creation however, is Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Over the seven seasons of this show, Joss experiemented with the style, format and character arcs in such creative ways that each season feels completely distinct and yet part of a larger whole. Joss has a defining voice and style in his writing that can be simultaneously hilariously quippy and moving at the same time. Buffy is a rare show that lives up to it’s reputation, in fact it’s probably much better than a lot of cynical people will give it credit for.

When I first heard about the show, I dismissed it. I had yet to go to film school and my taste in film and TV was decidedly narrow. I like action and fantasy and that was mostly it. I saw Buffy as some cheap corny show about love triangles and that was all. I was technically right, but I made the mistake of looking at the show from a distance and leaving it at that. I think the title also put me off a little. Its a mouthful and sounds like a cheap B movie. I was wrong. Buffy is a show with one or two love triangles, and the production values are sometimes stretched, owing to the small budget. But it’s also so much more, an exploration of becoming a responsible adult, a grand story about the very real consequences on a person’s life when they actually become the “chosen one” and all the burdens that comes with.

It wasn’t until I watched a video called Why You Should Watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer by Passion of the Nerd that I realised I had been missing out for years.

The show is an epic adventure with many unique and iconic episodes that not only pushed the limits of writing (Hush) but often also influenced the trend of writing for TV for years after. There is a reason that many shows like Grimm and Charmed sprang up after Buffy gained success. The story is compelling, but what really makes me come back to the series is the characters. Joss is best at create interesting and nuanced characters that feel grounded and real. He is the master of witty dialogue, but some of the best moments of the series are when characters simply sit down and talk candidly to each other.

The arcs that each character goes through provide plenty of opportunities for varied stories, and often go in completely unexpected directions. Some characters start off as the main villain of the season, only to become more and more heroic as time goes on. The acting from the main cast is also stellar, as each actor manages to very quickly embody the personality of their role. Sarah Michelle Gellar in particular is just the right blend of spunky, cheerful and intense when neccesary, and the range of performance she demonstrates through all the seven seasons makes me wish that she was still playing the character.

Other films can boast a bigger budget with more polished effects and choreography, but Buffy has something none of those can offer, depth. TV shows have the luxury of being able to explore stories and characters for far longer than most movies, and Buffy takes full advantage. Rather than being an easy show about the relentless return to the status quo, the town of Sunnydale is in constant change. Friends become enemies and vice versa. Characters grow and start new relationships. The show is not afraid to embrace change, and part of that might have been owing to the fact that Joss Whedon was never quite sure if he would get another season greenlit, and so he felt willing to take more risks than he might have if the show was guaranteed.

I’m not suggesting that this show is flawless. It took me a while to get into it properly even after watching Why You Should Watch Buffy. The first season is a mixed bag tonally, and suffers from too many one-off monster episodes, many of which are extremely cheesy. However even in those episodes there are things to enjoy, and by the time I got to season 2, I was having a whale of a time. It keeps you interested by having many interesting themes that drive the motivations of the characters and allow you to understand them better. For instance, choice is often brought up. Characters often argue whether or not they have a choice in their actions and if what they are doing can be judged. There are often heavy consequences for the characters in many of the choices they make. The show implies through Buffy and her stance that there is always a choice in our lives, even if it isn’t always a pleasant one, and that central theme runs through most of what Buffy does throughout her story.

This show has much to offer. I am immensely glad that I finally got around to watching it as has had a profound effect on me and taken it’s place as one of my favourite TV shows of all time. Joss Whedon is an exellent writer and is in my opinion, at his best writing for long running series. Once you get past the title (and parts of the first season) you might just find that this 90’s show about vampires and high school has a lot more to it than you assumed. I did.

Career Spotlight: Bruce Campbell

It is always interesting to me when watching films to pay attention to the supporting actors, the people in the background who can often give a much better performance than the leads. On the other hand, it’s also fun to watch actors who mostly star in cult movies and who may not be the most famous movie stars, but are often infinitely more entertaining. Bruce Campbell is such an actor. I have been a huge fan of Campbell as an actor for years, ever since I first watched the Evil Dead trilogy. He is a huge personality, and while he has not yet become a mainstream name, he has dedicated fan-base and is a nerd culture icon. I’m going to look at a selection of his best movies and explore what makes him, and them so damn entertaining.

The Evil Dead trilogy

Looking at the start of Campbell’s career, it is worth exploring the films that made him a name in cult cinema. The Evil Dead has a production history legendary to most film buffs. The film spent years in production, with shoots forced to halt several times as the director Sam Raimi tried to rustle up enough money to continue. Actor’s scenes were finished by stand ins, and even the most hardcore fan will admit that the effects were cheap. But the cheapness doesn’t detract from the visceral feeling those effects conjure. To this day the gooey, all too tangible makeup of the deadites is enough to make me squirm. And as many cult fans will tell you, cheap practical effects often add to the charm of a film if done correctly. There’s a fine line between crap and camp.

Bruce Campbell plays Ash, a young member of a group of friends who all get trapped within a cabin after accidentally reading from a strange book. It turns out to be a Necronomicon, a book of the dead, and summons evil creatures that take over the bodies of dead humans and wreak havoc on the living. As the movies progress, Ash grows from a scared young man in over his head into a hardened warrior, with enough ego and hilarious lines to please even a die-hard cynic. His character really comes into his own in Evil Dead 2. During the film, everything is thrown at him, as he first loses his girlfriend and then his hand to the forces of evil. Everything he experiences toughens him up, but it also turns him into an egomaniac, capable of making huge mistakes that only lend the growing comedy of the films. Evil Dead 2 is in my opinion, even better than the first film because it leans into the strengths of the star and director. Campbell is best when he is blending extreme physical comedy and action, and throwing out deadpan jokes that never fail to crack a smile on me. Ash has so many good lines, a mix of bad-ass and hilarious that feels like a natural response to the growing horror. Ash as a character feels like someone who has been forced to adapt fast and harden as a person. Oh, and did I mention the chainsaw hand? There’s a chainsaw hand.

 

Xena Warrior Princess (and Hercules)

Xena is a show that should collapse under the sheer weight of its own cheese. Being a swords and sandals adventure series set in the mythical days of ancient Greece, it somehow manages to manage its campiness and somehow deliver an engaging story. It has a lot of good fun action, and some awesome performances, especially from the wonderful Lucy Lawless. She gives off an effortless aura of bad-ass-ery (I know that isn’t a word) that makes her character really appealing. She has her share of great one-liners and dry wit, but the king of that style is of course, Mr Campbell.

Campbell plays the self-proclaimed King of Thieves, Autolycus. A character well suited to the actor’s style. In any other hands, this kind of character could be nothing more than a stereotype, the quippy master thief with a heart of gold. However, Campbell has spent a lot of his career honing that kind of character, and putting new spins on it. For Autolycus, he focuses on showing the heart behind the thief. He has a lot of arrogance and bluster, but plays it so that we can tell it is an act, a persona to keep up in order to keep people at a distance. Autolycus does have a massive ego mind you, one that gets him into bigger and bigger scrapes as he fails to recognise when he is in over his own head. But underneath it all we can see how he ultimately means well. It also helps that the writers give Campbell some fantastic one-liners, and a slew of great slapstick set-pieces. Autolycus shows up in both Xena and its sister show Hercules the Legendary Journeys, but I think he works best as a foil to the more stoic Xena. Campbell is clearly having a lot of fun with the role and it comes across onscreen. The character is a riot to watch, and has some surprisingly emotional moments to enjoy as well.  I thoroughly recommend checking Xena out.

 

Burn Notice

So we’ve seen Campbell in fantasy and cult horror, what about a crime procedural? Luckily, I have just the show for you. Burn Notice is a TV series about Michael Western, an ex-CIA agent played by Jeffrey Donovan. He has been “burned”, unjustly blacklisted from the CIA following mysterious circumstances. Now stuck in Miami, he must do small-time surveillance and spy work for cash in hand while trying to find out who burned him and why.

The first couple of seasons have some very dated editing and pacing that is slightly annoying, but it is more than made up for by the other strengths of the series. The best thing about this show to me is the scale of it. Western doesn’t take on the entire CIA or perform huge world saving spy missions. Instead he helps out local people caught up in legal matters they can’t deal with themselves. He frequently uses the only resources available to him, a small team of people with unique skills and connections. He also makes surveillance equipment out of random tech he buys in shops. On top of this rather unique concept, the acting is stellar across the board, and all the cast have great chemistry together.

The cast is rounded out by some great side characters, and of course, the one played by Bruce Campbell. Sam Axe, an ex-Navy Seal who gets by in Miami doing freelance work and helping out Michael. He is an over the hill veteran who takes every opportunity to booze it up, steal Michael’s yoghurt and casually deliver some of the show’s best lines. I love how Campbell tones his performance in the show. It being a fast paced traditional procedural, it wouldn’t make sense to go as over-the-top as Campbell is capable of, so he tones it down and keeps Axe very mellow. Axe tends to provide comedy most of all, but he is still very useful in the missions, helping get contacts that Western no longer has access to, along with using alter egos in order to gain information, which is always extremely entertaining. Despite the humour, this could be considered one of Campbell’s more serious characters and it shows that despite mainly starring in tongue in cheek cult films, Bruce is more than capable of doing some smashing acting when required.

(Apologies for the loud music)

 

My Name is Bruce

Campbell has directed and starred in many films that refuse to be defined. He directed a film called the Man with the Screaming Brain and starred in a film called Buba Hotep, which is about a secretly alive Elvis living in a retirement home until he must fight an undead mummy. The latter is considered some of his best work. But one of the strangest and yet most charming films he has made is one called My Name is Bruce. This is a film starring cult actor Bruce Campbell, playing cult actor Bruce Campbell. The entire film is something of a commentary on the actor’s career and it is equal parts bizarre and bonkers fun.

In the film, Campbell (the character) is brought to the town of Gold Lick by a fan of his movies, who wants him to fight an ancient evil that has terrorised the town. If this is sounding incredibly meta-textual, that’s because it is. The character Campbell is disappointed with his career, as he stars in B-movies with cheap effects, which isn’t too far away from the truth. Through the character of Jeff, we get to see the interesting relationship that Campbell has with his fans and how that can lead to unrealistic expectations. It also gives Bruce a chance to play a hilariously cartoon version of his own public persona, with even more cheesy one-liners, acting like a total coward, and somehow still kicking all kinds of arse. It isn’t a particularly nuanced or high budget film, but given the main character, that works just fine. This type of film is an acquired taste, as to enjoy it you need to know the actor’s career well and also enjoy campy B-movie comedies. Fortunately, I love all those things, and if you do to, I cannot recommend it enough.

 

Bruce Campbell is a unique performer. He has spent his career cultivating a certain persona, a blend of arrogance, quips and self-deprecation that makes him endlessly entertaining. He may not have mainstream success, but he has a loyal fan-base and a definitive niche that no-one else can touch. His movies may not all be high-art, but who cares? He makes fun films. I think he has an interesting legacy in cult film and his willingness to embrace this side of film-making is what has made him such a success in it. If you have been interested by any of the TV shows or films I’ve explored, then give them a watch and see what all the fuss is about.

The Thing: A Horror Legend…

My housemate is currently in the middle of writing a distressing amount essays, one of which happens to about John Carpenter. An upside of this is that we recently spent an enjoyable evening re-watching and analysing a bunch of his films, starting with my personal favourite, The Thing. This made me realise that I have yet to cover John Carpenter in this blog and that is a tragic mistake. Allow me to immediately rectify this by looking at The Thing right now.

For those who don’t know, The Thing is a 1982 remake of the 1951 film The Thing from Another World which in turn was based on the book Who Goes There? by John W. Campbell Jr. It cleaves more closely to the original novel than the ‘51 film and achieves a lot more in terms of creature design by virtue of having decades worth more developed practical effects. The film is a great watch and a very tense one at that. The story revolves around an Antarctic research base, which is invaded by an alien who can take the form of any living thing it kills. This leads to rising tensions and paranoia amongst the team as they try desperately to route out the creature and prevent it from reaching civilisation. Careful, some minor spoilers ahead.

Re-watching it, even knowing the plot in advance it is still stomach wrenching trying to keep track of who has been assimilated by the creature at what point. The film is very well acted by all the cast, particularly Kurt Russell as MacReady, who plays a tough no-nonsense helicopter pilot. A man who doesn’t normally lead, but naturally takes charge and keeps his head in a crisis. Russell was born to play tough rugged characters like this, and MacReady is a fun character to root for. He is resourceful and intelligent, yet fallible. Another standout is Keith David as Childs, who simultaneously provides a good sceptical foil to MacReady, and also brings some moments of levity, such as when he explodes after being tied to a chair for so long. His confrontational relationship with MacReady is contrasted well with his methodical and careful nature. He doesn’t want to take anything for granted.

It is immensely refreshing to come back to a Horror film where the characters act logically and make smart decisions. The threat is immediately taken seriously and studied. Once the crew learn of the alien after seeing it assimilate a dog, they take many measures to try and wipe it out, even torching every creature they come across. The script allows for them to make mistakes of course, but they are much more capable than your average horror protagonist, and this makes their inevitable deaths much more impactful. We want to see these characters survive. The blood test scene is a perfect example of logical characters. After seeing different parts of the thing react with self-preservation MacReady devises a heated blood test, to see if the creature’s blood will react to defend itself. This creates intense tension and helps drive the plot forward, weeding out members of the group one by one.

Speaking of the creature, the makeup and practical effects in this film are outstanding. They were incredible at the time and they still hold up really well today. While I think CGI is often unfairly maligned in cinema, there is something to be said for trying to make things for real first, especially because there is always a visceral reaction to seeing something physical happen in a movie, even if you know it isn’t real. The grotesque models and animatronics used to create the various phases of the thing as it assimilates the crew are obscenely fantastic! All the credit in the world needs to go to Rob Bottin, who was only 22 at the time. He dedicated so much time and effort to getting these effects made, that he was ordered to hospital by Carpenter after shooting wrapped. The fact that he received not a single award for this movie is nothing short of criminal.

In terms of direction, Carpenter employs a lot of the same techniques he used in his earlier horror, Halloween. The camera is almost always moving, creeping around the characters and often lingering on empty environments, giving the disturbing impression that the creature is always watching these people, waiting for the right moment. The shots of the base without people in view shape the idea that the building is almost a character on its own, hiding the creature with its small rooms and long corridors. I love the way that Carpenter turns the bright comfortable building, full of beds and TVs into the more inhospitable environment; a place of endless fear where the thing could be hiding in plain sight at any moment. Contrast that to the dark, freezing cold outside, which feels oddly safer at times, forcing the creature to be out in the open and vulnerable, nowhere to corner one of the men to assimilate him. The film also makes great use of reincorporation, bringing things that have been casually set up back later in the film. My favourite example is the idea of using blood to test the men, which initially fails because the samples are ruined, only for MacReady to improvise a simpler, more intuitive version later on. The fact that the crew keep finding torn garments in the trash is another little detail that I picked up on the repeat viewing. Later in the film we find out the creature tears the clothes of it’s victims, and so needs to rip the name label to avoid giving the game away.

This film is an iconic achievement, and it has influenced a lot of media over the years. The creature effects are now legendary and its atmosphere of paranoia inspired directors like Quentin Tarantino, when making the Hateful Eight. John Carpenter is a fantastic cult director, who’s varied body of work is quite an experience to watch. I would strongly recommend seeing this movie, although be warned, it’s not for the squeamish.