Fall has finally come to the wilds of Northern Virginia, so it's time to put on my unintentional Freddy Krueger sweater, eat way too many mellowcreme pumpkins, and settle in for evenings with my favorite Halloween movies. While I do love scary movies, my favorite Halloween movies tend to fall into one of three categories: scary comedies, creature features, and creepy movies. Creepy movies usually fall into the ghost story/psychological horror category rather than including things like psycho killers or possessed dolls. Give me a House on Haunted Hill or The Others over a Saw any day of the week. Granted, I enjoy all of the classic slasher movies, but stopped watching the countless remakes and the torture porn genre that came to popularity in the early 2000s. Not my thing, but by all means, go watch people be sewn together as a human centipede or cut their legs off to get out of Jigsaw's torture chamber. You do you when it comes to scary movies.
Scary comedies are probably my favorite of the three, since I don't feel the need to sleep with the lights on or watch cartoons after watching a scary comedy. Movies like Shaun of the Dead, Haunted Honeymoon, most of what's shown on Freeform during 31 Days of Halloween (yes, it's 31 days now because they understand that Halloween is superior to Christmas), and the entire Ghostbusters franchise are all part of this category. Most of these movies aren't that scary, but every now and then, there's a little spooky element to keep the audience on their toes. I also happen to love old school creature features like the ones Universal released in the 1930s and 1940s; The Wolf Man, Frankenstein, The Bride of Frankenstein, Dracula, and the original, non-Tom Cruise version of The Mummy are some of the best horror movies ever.
When I was younger, I was fearless about horror movies in a way that I'm not today. This is how I came to watch The Exorcist in my early teens, alone in the dark paneled basement of our townhouse in Burke. I'd watch anything once, and then be terrified later. In the mid-late 1990s, stations like USA, TBS, and WGN played midnight movies and local cable access stations still did a Saturday afternoon movie. It was usually a creature movie, from the 1950s or 1960s, so I saw my fill of Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, and all of The Toxic Avenger movies. It's also through these shows that I was introduced to movie hosts like Morgus (in New Orleans only), Joe Bob Briggs, and the greatest of all time, Elvira, Mistress of the Dark. They'd show movies, do commentary, and make fun of the terrible special effects, overacting, and thin plot lines of every movie. They also knew their horror, so I'd get recommendations for other things to watch, some of which I like (old school Vincent Price movies) and some of which I didn't (gore fests by some of the great Italian horror directors).
It also helps that my brother is horror fan too. It's from him that I get my love of Stephen King books and (most) movies. He tormented me with Freddy Krueger when we were younger, but that's part of the job of being a big brother. He'll go see horror movies with me if my friends don't want to, and loves a good zombie movie. As much as I have him to thank for my love all creepy, I know that I have wildly different tastes from him on a lot of these movies. He's not as big into classic horror as I am, and doesn't understand my love of cheesy sci-fi movies of the 1950s. I'll forgive him for that since he's the only person I can text during episodes of American Horror Story with ridiculous questions like "Why does the antichrist have to be a creepy Vampire Lestat/Willy
Wonka/Glee club member reject? Why can't he just wear a hoodie and look
like a normal person?" and he'll answer me honestly.
Anyway, for my first official Halloween post of October, I thought I'd return to my love of scary-ish comedies and revisit two movies from my childhood that I will love forever and will fight anyone who thinks they're terrible. I haven't really watched either of these movies as an adult and definitely never had anything to drink while watching either, so I thought instead of doing a complete breakdown of each movie, I'd watch them with a little wine and the eyes of an adult (since apparently I am one). So, grab your wine of choice, some popcorn, and maybe some mellowcreme pumpkins and join me for The Monster Squad (1987) and Elvira, Mistress of the Dark (1988).
The Monster Squad was called a lot of things when it was released in 1987, but a great movie was not one of them. Often compared to the more successful Goonies (the mom is the same in both movies, which is funny), The Monster Squad is, at its heart, an homage to the great Universal creature features of the 1930s. The big five villains, Dracula, Wolf Man, the Mummy, the Creature from the Black Lagoon, and Frankenstein's Monster, show up in a modern suburban town to find an amulet and bring about the end of the world. They don't anticipate the Monster Squad, a group of preteen monster movie fans who figure out the plan, and try to put a stop to Dracula's nefarious plan. Released a year later, Elvira, Mistress of the Dark is the type of movie Elvira would have watched on her show. She plays a version of herself, a horror hostess who wants to open a show on Vegas (Cassandra Peterson, the actress behind Elvira, was a Vegas showgirl in her early career). A long-lost great aunt dies and leaves Elvira her house, dog, and recipe book in Falwell, MA. She drives her custom Macabre Mobile (her badass Elvira car) to claim her inheritance and discovers she's actually the descendant of a powerful witch and has to use her powers to save the world from evil great uncle who wants to become an all-powerful being and rule the world.
Basically, these are two versions of the same movie. I've never watched them back to back before, so it wasn't until I planned my double feature that I realized the similarities within the plots. Most 80s movies were about a ragtag group of people trying to save the day, so it's not surprising that these two would share a similar plot. Obviously, they achieve their grand finales in very different ways and with very different stories along the way. Neither were particularly well-received at the box office, but both are huge cult favorites. There's a documentary out about The Monster Squad called Wolfman's Got Nards (which was almost the title of this post), focusing on the fandom of the movie (I haven't seen it yet, but it's supposed to be great). Elvira is a huge draw on the horror con circuit and is genuinely one of the nicest celebrities I follow on Twitter. She even had her own spectacular at Knottsberry Farm
What I love about these movies is how ridiculous they are, but how wonderfully connected to old school horror movies they are. There's nothing hipster-y or modern about either movie and this is exactly why I watch them. I feel like a kid again when I watch them, minus the dark paneled basement. That's Halloween to me: a little scary, a little silly, and always fun.
Happy Halloween! Pleasant Nightmares (as Elvira would say)!
Friday, October 26, 2018
Sunday, October 7, 2018
Lazy Movie Weekend: Exile in Guyville
Last week, I put my old lady tendencies aside and stayed up (and out of my apartment) past 9 pm on a weeknight. Our one true queen, Liz Phair, was playing at the 9:30 Club and I couldn't miss the show for a little old thing like a good night's sleep. That would be very un-rock and roll of me.
Phair's debut album Exile in Guyville turned 25 this year. Us 90s girls remember that album, and revel in the experience of listening to it on repeat. For those not familiar with the album (shame on you), Phair has described it as a song for song response to The Rolling Stones' album Exile on Main Street (although not everyone gets that). At its heart, Guyville is about the female voice in the very male dominated 90s indie rock scene. Phair wrote songs that put her in the front rather than on the sidelines of the scene, as so many of her male counterparts wanted. She didn't play the entire album, but did include songs like "Mesmerizing," "Fuck & Run," "Stratford-On-Guy," and "Divorce Song."
When I arrived at the 9:30 Club, I was immediately struck by how many white dudes in polo shirts of a certain age (older than me, but not old) were at the show. I imagine that these were the guys in Phair's Guyville, who have grown up and are now investment bankers or accountants. I texted a friend pre-show, and she wondered if maybe they thought "Guyville" was something else. This is entirely possible. It was just one of those odd occurrences at a show where the audience ends up being made of people who are unexpected.
Seeing Liz Phair this past week, while also working my way through all four versions of the move A Star Is Born, created an interesting counterpoint to what's been going on since I rage-blogged last week. There may not be a direct parallel between Exile in Guyville and A Star Is Born, but in my brain, I can see it very distinctly. At the center of all five experiences, is a woman trying to navigate a male space while also being female.
Each version of A Star Is Born (1937, 1954, 1976, and 2018) has a similar plot: a young woman comes is working her way into the movie business (1937, 1954) or the music business (1976, 2018). She works as a waitress, sings commercials, or at drag shows (one of my favorite parts of the new version). An older, established actor/musician "discovers" her at a bar/as a waitress/at a charity fundraiser and falls in love with her, while also helping her career. She becomes a star, and his career takes a downward turn. This isn't because of her rise to fame, but because he's an alcoholic/drug addict and entirely unreliable, so no one wants to hire him. She falls in love with him anyway, and they marry secretly. Along the way, he completely embarrasses her when she wins an award (Oscar or Grammy, depending on the movie), and eventually goes to rehab. Of course, the story doesn't ever end happily, despite everyone's best efforts.
While each version has this shared plot DNA, they're distinct given the time period in which they were filmed and the lead actors. The 1937 version is an early talking picture. Its stars, Janet Gaynor and Fredric March, were silent film actors who successfully transitioned to talkies (not all actors did). Both is and the 1954 version have that "Golden Age of Hollywood" vibe, but also give viewers a look at how awful the studio system is/was and how actors were basically properties of the studios they worked for in every aspect of their lives. The 1954 version was all about Judy Garland; it's so much about her character that James Mason feels a bit like an afterthought as the male lead (although he's great when on screen). 1976 brought us Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson in the leads, and moves the movie to the music industry. Like Garland, this movie was about revamping Streisand's image (PS - this didn't really work out that way). The newest version stars Lady Gaga, in her first lead role, and Bradley Cooper directing his first feature. Both wrote songs for the film and sing live in the film. This is one of my favorite parts of the new version.
Central to each version is the oldest plot line of movies: a woman trying to save a "broken" man. I went to see this movie with my friend, Emily, and she made the comment that watching this movie as an adult is very different than watching it as a teenager (whichever version you watched). Back then, we were caught up in the epic love story, the fairy tale of being discovered and falling in love with the discoverer. We missed the message. Norman/Norman/John/Jackson all warn Esther/Ally about them as bad choices, but the ladies dive in anyway. It's only when the guy promises to change his ways that the girl says yes to marrying him. Love is that powerful an emotion that they go against their better judgement. Even the producer character in each version knows this is probably going to end up terribly, but they don't stop it. True love can't be stopped, and these ladies are making a choice. I can't say it's necessarily a bad choice, but it's a choice. At the end, of course, Norman/Norman/John/Jackson make a choice too. We can debate their choice forever, but it's also a choice.
In traditional Lazy Movie Weekend fashion, here are some things I love/hate about all four versions:
As I watched Ally and Jackson's story unfold, I couldn't help but think of two Liz Phair songs: "Mesmerizing" and "Divorce Song," arguably one of the saddest songs on Exile in Guyville. The song is about a couple on a road trip and how one moment, the woman wanting her own room because they've been in a car together all day, spins out of control and resentments come out and they both say things they may or may not mean. There's no real ending to the song, as there is an ending to Ally and Jackson's story, but it still has that same sadness that I associate with the plot of A Star Is Born. And like Phair in "Mesmerizing", Esther/Ally keep falling back into the same story. Maybe that's why every few decades we get a new A Star Is Born.
I love the song "Shallow" from the new A Star Is Born. If you're not going to see the movie, just watch this video:
Coming soon: Another Lazy Movie Weekend featuring my favorite teen monster movie, I join a Mardi Gras krewe and decorate purses to throw, and we discuss voting and being a good citizen...again.
Phair's debut album Exile in Guyville turned 25 this year. Us 90s girls remember that album, and revel in the experience of listening to it on repeat. For those not familiar with the album (shame on you), Phair has described it as a song for song response to The Rolling Stones' album Exile on Main Street (although not everyone gets that). At its heart, Guyville is about the female voice in the very male dominated 90s indie rock scene. Phair wrote songs that put her in the front rather than on the sidelines of the scene, as so many of her male counterparts wanted. She didn't play the entire album, but did include songs like "Mesmerizing," "Fuck & Run," "Stratford-On-Guy," and "Divorce Song."
When I arrived at the 9:30 Club, I was immediately struck by how many white dudes in polo shirts of a certain age (older than me, but not old) were at the show. I imagine that these were the guys in Phair's Guyville, who have grown up and are now investment bankers or accountants. I texted a friend pre-show, and she wondered if maybe they thought "Guyville" was something else. This is entirely possible. It was just one of those odd occurrences at a show where the audience ends up being made of people who are unexpected.
Seeing Liz Phair this past week, while also working my way through all four versions of the move A Star Is Born, created an interesting counterpoint to what's been going on since I rage-blogged last week. There may not be a direct parallel between Exile in Guyville and A Star Is Born, but in my brain, I can see it very distinctly. At the center of all five experiences, is a woman trying to navigate a male space while also being female.
Each version of A Star Is Born (1937, 1954, 1976, and 2018) has a similar plot: a young woman comes is working her way into the movie business (1937, 1954) or the music business (1976, 2018). She works as a waitress, sings commercials, or at drag shows (one of my favorite parts of the new version). An older, established actor/musician "discovers" her at a bar/as a waitress/at a charity fundraiser and falls in love with her, while also helping her career. She becomes a star, and his career takes a downward turn. This isn't because of her rise to fame, but because he's an alcoholic/drug addict and entirely unreliable, so no one wants to hire him. She falls in love with him anyway, and they marry secretly. Along the way, he completely embarrasses her when she wins an award (Oscar or Grammy, depending on the movie), and eventually goes to rehab. Of course, the story doesn't ever end happily, despite everyone's best efforts.
While each version has this shared plot DNA, they're distinct given the time period in which they were filmed and the lead actors. The 1937 version is an early talking picture. Its stars, Janet Gaynor and Fredric March, were silent film actors who successfully transitioned to talkies (not all actors did). Both is and the 1954 version have that "Golden Age of Hollywood" vibe, but also give viewers a look at how awful the studio system is/was and how actors were basically properties of the studios they worked for in every aspect of their lives. The 1954 version was all about Judy Garland; it's so much about her character that James Mason feels a bit like an afterthought as the male lead (although he's great when on screen). 1976 brought us Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson in the leads, and moves the movie to the music industry. Like Garland, this movie was about revamping Streisand's image (PS - this didn't really work out that way). The newest version stars Lady Gaga, in her first lead role, and Bradley Cooper directing his first feature. Both wrote songs for the film and sing live in the film. This is one of my favorite parts of the new version.
Central to each version is the oldest plot line of movies: a woman trying to save a "broken" man. I went to see this movie with my friend, Emily, and she made the comment that watching this movie as an adult is very different than watching it as a teenager (whichever version you watched). Back then, we were caught up in the epic love story, the fairy tale of being discovered and falling in love with the discoverer. We missed the message. Norman/Norman/John/Jackson all warn Esther/Ally about them as bad choices, but the ladies dive in anyway. It's only when the guy promises to change his ways that the girl says yes to marrying him. Love is that powerful an emotion that they go against their better judgement. Even the producer character in each version knows this is probably going to end up terribly, but they don't stop it. True love can't be stopped, and these ladies are making a choice. I can't say it's necessarily a bad choice, but it's a choice. At the end, of course, Norman/Norman/John/Jackson make a choice too. We can debate their choice forever, but it's also a choice.
In traditional Lazy Movie Weekend fashion, here are some things I love/hate about all four versions:
- Dorothy Park and Joan Didion have screen writing credits for the 1937 and 1976 versions respectively.
- The hats in the '37 version are a thing of beauty - come for the movie, stay for the hats.
- "Do you mind if I take one more look?" Norman Maine says this in the first version to Esther; there's a variation of the line in the three subsequent films. It's adorable and very sad.
- 1937 Esther and Norman have swans on their property. Swans! Rich people, man, rich people.
- In each version there's a moment when Esther's name (as Vicki Lester in the first two versions), covers up Norman/Norman/John/Jackson that is a symbol of his downfall.
- "Tragedy is the test of courage." Esther's granny at the end of 1937.
- Judy Garland wears tights as pants in the 1954 version. Seriously, tights as pants.
- Even if you don't want to watch the 1954 version, watch the part where Judy Garland sings "The Man That Got Away." It guts me every time I watch this version.
- The studio cut a significant amount of the movie from the final version and burned the footage for some reason. The film was digitally restored with film stills and audio for those parts. I would recommend watching an un-restored version the first time you watch this one. It's less choppy.
- "I'm sober as a judge." Too soon, Norman Maine, too soon.
- The Oscars scene in this version is so painful to watch. It's hard to imagine why Esther stays after this.
- I'm not entirely sure Kris Kristofferson knew that his shirts had buttons all the way up. There isn't a scene in the 1976 version that doesn't include most of his chest.
- Barbra Streisand used her own clothes in the movie, which I love more than anything.
- Originally, Elvis was in consideration for the John Norman role, as well Neil Diamond. Col. Tom Parker wouldn't let Elvis be in the film because no one asked Parker first. Elvis died the year after the film was released.
- SPOILER: the 1976 version is the only one where the character's death is ambiguous. The producer for the film was uncomfortable with suicide as a plot line.
- Blink and you'll miss Freddy Krueger, Robert Englund, as an uncredited patron in a bar.
- "Evergreen" won Streisand an Oscar and is probably the only part of the 1976 version that critics and fans can actually agree on as a good thing.
- Shangela and Willam, drag performers who both appeared on seasons of RuPaul's Drag Race, are in the new version. I love them and I love that they're here.
- Bradley Cooper does have a weird voice thing going on in this movie, but I think it's because he's trying to sound like Sam Elliott and/or to show how hard drinking and drug use can ruin your voice.
- Concert footage was filmed at festivals like Coachella and Glastonbury, some of which when Lady Gaga was performing during the festival.
- The film opens with Lady Gaga singing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" which is a lovely tribute to Judy Garland.
- Lady Gaga is amazing and I would legitimately
- Jackson's "I'd like to take one more look at you" is not only the latest version of the line, but also a reference to "With One More Look At You" from the 1976 version.
- That's Bradly Cooper's actual dog, Charlie. So adorable.
- The 2018 version is the only version where Norman/Norman/John/Jackson is disappointed in Esther/Ally because she turns her back on being a singer to be a pop star. He's not jealous of her success, but feels like she sold out and isn't being true to herself as a performer. This makes me appreciate Jackson in a way I don't appreciate the other three men. He wanted her to be the best Ally, not a version a producer told her to be.
As I watched Ally and Jackson's story unfold, I couldn't help but think of two Liz Phair songs: "Mesmerizing" and "Divorce Song," arguably one of the saddest songs on Exile in Guyville. The song is about a couple on a road trip and how one moment, the woman wanting her own room because they've been in a car together all day, spins out of control and resentments come out and they both say things they may or may not mean. There's no real ending to the song, as there is an ending to Ally and Jackson's story, but it still has that same sadness that I associate with the plot of A Star Is Born. And like Phair in "Mesmerizing", Esther/Ally keep falling back into the same story. Maybe that's why every few decades we get a new A Star Is Born.
I love the song "Shallow" from the new A Star Is Born. If you're not going to see the movie, just watch this video:
Coming soon: Another Lazy Movie Weekend featuring my favorite teen monster movie, I join a Mardi Gras krewe and decorate purses to throw, and we discuss voting and being a good citizen...again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)