/Film has a two-part interview with Rob Zombie up. Hunter Stephenson (who also wrote this great essay about why the animosity directed at Rob Zombie's Halloween remake should have been aimed at the Platinum Dunes remake factory instead) did the interview. The first part is here and the second part is here. I recommend reading it if you're interested at all in what Rob Zombie is trying to do with horror in movies.
I was watching Zombie's Halloween again on Showtime the other night, and I just can't see what it is about that movie that pisses so many people off. I thought it was better than about 90% of the horror movies I've seen come out in the last 15 years. But it inspires so many people to anger. Not, like, disinterest or dismissal, but genuine hatred.
I wanted to highlight a couple of things Zombie has to say in the interview:
Regarding the "sacrilege" of showing Michael as a young boy: "I don’t think it’s sacrilege. I think what is sacrilege is all of the shitty sequels. I mean, is that what everyone enjoyed? Is that what they want more of?"
Regarding movie mythology and reboot/remakes: "See, these things are interesting and funny because everyone creates their own mythology. Someone made Halloween thirty years ago thinking it was a one-off movie. And that movie ends with that guy disappearing. And then, with each movie, more and more baggage was added, weird mythology, and cross-stories. And to be honest, I really just don’t give a shit about that stuff. It’s like what you said earlier about characters like Batman. I mean, even in films and in TV, what does The Dark Knight have to do with Adam West dressed up as Batman? Nothing."
On humanizing Michael Meyers: "Well, we mentioned serial killers, and I’ve read a lot of books about them. Everyone from John Wayne Gacy to Charles Manson to Henry Lee Lucas. And their pasts never justify anything these people did. But when you read about their lives, it makes the crimes seem so different. See, I think these people become scarier when they become humanized. At one point, these guys were little kids. How did this little kid become this psychotic maniac? A lot of people piss and moan and say Michael Myers is so much scarier if he’s just a boogeyman. But to me, that’s already been done. Who needs to see that again? I’m not big on doing the same shit that so many other people already did. I mean, I almost feel bad for Michael. I mean, not really, but you sort of do, because he’s so fucked up inside, you know?"
Regarding violence in horror movies: "I like when violence seems real and I like when it seems ugly. I like when the act doesn’t seem fun. I was never a fan of ‘80s slasher movies. I think they are cartoony and silly. I was more into the violence in movies like Taxi Driver, The Wild Bunch, and Bonnie and Clyde. The violence in those films makes a statement in some way. You know what I mean? It’s saying something. And it’s either brutal, or depressing, or it’s real. But it’s never fun."
I find those approaches towards horror a lot more in line with what I think of as a horror film than a lot of what we get these days. Most recent horror that I've seen--the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is the example I'm always going to use, because it was shit--are just action movies with cruel streaks. I thought Rob Zombie's Halloween really ran with the idea of realism and the psychological meaning of these cinematic bogeyman figures. I think, if anything, the cinemascape is too jaded and too crowded with a kind of cynical coolness to be interested in something that thoughtful.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Rob Zombie and Horror
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
At issue here, at least from my perspective ( having attended the same college as John Carpenter and graduating with a degree in Film Production ) is that people tend to frown on anything that challenges not only conventional-wisdom ( i.e. the "human" aspect of Micheal Myers that Zombie accomplished with exquisite detail ) but the very idea that something that has a long-standing tradition can be improved upon. That being said, anyone that has the ability to see beyond the text-book fodder that is often unloaded on the bulk of film students ( conform to the 120 page script, don't try to detail characters outside your own sexuality - man writing as man, woman writing as woman, never use black-and-white as your primary medium, this list - and every film instructor has one - is a list of films never to be remade, et al ) is postulated as gospel so often and to such a strong degree that the bulk of graduates actually believe such clap-trap.
When Rob Zombie's Halloween completely shattered my vision of Carpenter's original, it left within me such a visceral reaction that I realize at once that it was superior to the original. But, convincing others of such proved to be a task too difficult for me to accomplish on my own.
Most people don't have the stomach to withstand having their visual world turned upside-down. They like their nice, neat, little, flaming shit.
The converse to this would be Micheal Bays bastardization of Transformers. The effects are breath-taking, but the characters and script are poorly conceived ham-fistedly portrayed.
My best friend went to film school and came out of it as one of the more pretentious people I've ever known. He sort of detoxed himself for a few years. I don't like this idea--and I see a lot of film critics or self-styled online critics have it--that films are supposed to give us reasons not to hate them.
You're exactly right, and the way people immediately leap to the defense of the original is staggering to me. People keep telling me I'm wrong when I say that most people want the same thing over and over, but they haven't been able to convince me. Look at Star Trek, or the recent announcement about Buffy, or the new James Bond movies: some people would rather something disappear than be handled differently.
Post a Comment