13 Nights of Shocktober: The Hitcher

by A.J.

This is my favorite time of year, second only to Christmas. Autumn has arrived, the weather is cooling down, and October becomes the month-long celebration of scary movies called Shocktober.  So, in the days leading up Halloween I’ll be posting some scary movie recommendations to help you celebrate Shocktober.

Night 3: Rutger Hauer Memorial Night
“I’m going to sit here, and you’re going to drive.”

The Hitcher (1986)

The great actor Ruger Hauer passed away earlier this year after a long career delivering great performances in a variety of genres. He played heroes and romantic leads in Paul Verhoven’s European films (Soldier of Orange, Turkish Delight), but in American films he usually played a villain in thrillers, action movies, and horror movies, like one of my favorites, The Hitcher. This horror-thriller has a simple plot (a young man picks up the wrong hitchhiker), follows slasher movie tropes, at times goes over the top, then way over the top, but works, even when it doesn’t, thanks to a steely, menacing performance from Rutger Hauer—one of his best in my opinion, after his most famous role, the replicant Roy Batty in Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner.

C. Thomas Howell is the young man, Jim, who on a rainy night driving through West Texas, picks up a hitchhiker played by Rutger Hauer. The Hitcher says his name is John Ryder, the perfect name for a psychotic hitchhiking killer. He does not put up any façade of normality whatsoever; right away he acts totally creepy and intense. Jim escapes only to be relentless pursued by Ryder and his trail of murder and mayhem. Jim befriends a waitress at diner named Nash (Jennifer Jason Leigh), and she, naturally, gets dragged into the pursuit. The picturesque West Texas landscape provides a desolate and picturesque backdrop for the suspense and carnage that ensues.

There is no reason why the Hitcher latches on to Jim to hunt and torment. The Hitcher has no motivation, ethos, or history; he exists only to cause mayhem and murder. Originally, the screenplay by Eric Red explored the Hitcher’s origin, but Hauer thought explaining what warped and twisted the character into a killer actually made him tragic since that kind of thing, unfortunately, happens in real life. Hauer said he wanted to play the Hitcher like he was the human version of the shark from JAWS. At one point, Hauer hums “Bicycle Built for Two,” like another famous nonhuman villain, HAL 9000 in 2001: A Space Odyssey. When Jim asks the Hitcher why he is doing this, Hauer takes two pennies, licks them, and places them on Howell’s eyes. Then he gives Howell bullets for an empty revolver so they can continue their deadly game. Allegedly, Howell was legitimately afraid of Hauer on set.

The Hitcher aims to be a mix between an action film, a slasher film, and a Hitchcockian thriller. Though at times it is predictable, it is no less enjoyable. There are some outlandish moments, like the Hitcher shooting down a helicopter with a revolver, or wearing his duster even after the cops capture him, or the sound of lion roaring when he leaps from one car to another. Still, those scenes don’t seem too farfetched because this movie doesn’t mean to represent reality. I will admit there is one element to the story that is never convincing: the symbiotic, sadomasochistic relationship that is supposed to develop between the Hitcher and Jim in the final act.

When The Hitcher was released in 1986, it was reviled by critics for its grizzly and sadistic violence (though, of course, it seems tame by current standards of horror violence). Siskel and Ebert included it on their worst of the year lists. Ebert gave the film a 0 star review, writing: “…on its own terms, this movie is diseased and corrupt.” Hauer thought critics didn’t understand the film. In an interview he said, “Actually, the film was an allegory. The passenger represented evil. That’s all it was.” I’m not sure I entirely agree with Hauer on the allegory angle. Of course, I certainly don’t agree with Siskel or Ebert on this one. I end up watching this film every few years or so, and while it is undoubtedly violent and dark, I never get tired of watching Rutger Hauer’s incredible, enigmatic performance. He conveys so much while staying subtle. He stays quiet, moves slowly, and uses body language like stares and smirks to make his whole presence radiate evil and dread. The Hitcher is like a wild campfire story or urban legend put on film.

13 Nights of Shocktober: The Brood (1979)

by A.J.

This is my favorite time of year, second only to Christmas. Autumn has arrived, the weather is cooling down, and October becomes the month long celebration of scary movies called Shocktober. There are a lot of horror movies out there, but as a genre, horror is still looked down upon by some mainstream critics and moviegoers. It doesn’t help that, admittedly, there are so few quality horror movies made but, like comedy, it’s a very difficult and subjective genre. So, in the days leading up Halloween I’ll be posting some recommendations for scary movies to help you celebrate Shocktober.

Night 6: Cronenberg Night

“These thing have a way of expressing themselves.”

The Brood (1979)

The Brood is a strong contender for being David Cronenberg’s most polarizing film—Crash (1996) would be the reigning champion. Roger Ebert called The Brood “a particularly nasty little number” and “an el sleazo exploitation film.” He ended his review wondering, “Are there really people who want to see reprehensible trash like this?” In its theatrical run, The Brood failed to be a hit at the box office, but it developed a cult following over time after it was released on home video. Carrie Rickey, in her essay “The Brood: Separation Trials,” included with the film’s Criterion video release, called The Brood, “an emotionally realistic horror movie.” She also writes about how differently she perceived the film before and after having children. Cronenberg himself said that “The Brood is my version of Kramer vs. Kramer, but more realistic.” This statement seems like a wry blurb for his own film, which it is, but it is also true to some extent. The Brood shows through horror movie violence how the nastiness of a bad divorce can radiate out and effect more than just the spouses. He wrote The Brood while going through a very difficult divorce and custody battle. His soon to be ex-wife allegedly absconded with their daughter to a cult in California. It’s safe to assume that Cronenberg did not relate to the divorce in Kramer vs Kramer.

When The Brood begins Frank and his wife Nola are already estranged and out of regular contact. Nola is staying at an institute and undergoing an extreme version of a radical new therapy called psychoplasmics. It involves the therapist role playing as a patient’s abusive parent and belittling and berating them to bring out and confront their own rage. The creator of the bizarre therapy, Dr. Raglan, played by Oliver Reed, has Nola in isolation, but allows visits from Candy, Frank and Nola’s 5-year-old daughter. When Frank picks up Candy from the institute one day, he notices scratches and bruises on Candy’s back. He assumes that Nola must have abused Candy, and the truth is something close to but not exactly that. There is an unintended and dangerous side effect to psychoplasmics: the rage that is released through the therapy manifests itself physically in the body.

Dr. Raglan is praised as a genius. Nola is a devote follower and believer. Frank thinks that Raglan is a quack and his method is a sham. This can be seen as a take on the cliché of a spouse feeling that their therapist has sided with the other spouse and they are united against him/her. Frank meets with a former patient of Raglan’s that is suing Raglan for physiological damage to his body that lead to cancer. He believes Raglan turned his body against him. Frank seeks sole custody of Candy but his lawyer tells him that even with the evidence he has of abuse he doesn’t have a strong case because “the law believes in motherhood.” Meanwhile, people close to Frank and Candy begin to die. The effect psychoplasmics has on Nola is to manifest her rage in a brood of murderous children that carry out violent attacks on the objects of her rage. Subconsciously, Nola is responsible for the abuse of Candy and murder of friends and family members. The murderous dwarf wearing a child’s red coat can’t help but bring to mind Nicholas Roeg’s marital drama/thriller film Don’t Look Now. The detective in charge of the murder investigation thinks that the culprit is someone’s deformed child that they kept locked up in an attic. “It wouldn’t be the first time,” he says.

I find that Cronenberg’s horror films have a pro-science perspective though they are about wild and fantastic stuff. Generally in films the scientist character, when not mad from the start, is the last to believe whatever paranormal event is occurring or continues to deny it even in the face of it. The scientific method is not about shouting down new claims. It is about evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as Carl Sagan would say. In Cronenberg’s films the extraordinary events of the story leave behind tangible evidence and the doctor or scientist and the other characters accept the claim as fact when presented with the evidence. In The Brood, one of the dwarf creatures is killed and an autopsy is done. The pathologist, the detective, and Frank are there to witness that the dwarf creature has no sexual organs or navel and is not entirely human. The evidence presented is met with acceptance not skepticism or hesitation. This is also true in Shivers, Rabid, The Brood, Scanners, Videodrome, The Dead Zone, and The Fly.

The controversy surrounding The Brood stems from claims that it is a misogynist film, and it is not difficult at all to read the film as such. With lines like, “You got involved with a woman that married you for your sanity, hoping it would rub off. It worked the other way,” and the fact that Nola is the source of all marital discord and conflict, it is understandable why the film could be viewed this way. I, and certain female fans of this film (yes they exist), view The Brood differently. The horror in The Brood stems from how psychoplasmics transformed Nola’s body. This is Cronenberg’s second film in which the female body transforms and becomes monstrous. In The Brood, Rabid, and Shivers the female body only becomes dangerous or monstrous and the site of horror after it has been tampered with by a male scientist seeking to improve the woman. In his first film, Shivers, the female body is the source of an infectious parasite that spreads to the tenants of a high rise building. What separates The Brood from Rabid (in which after surgery gone wrong a woman becomes a type of vampire), is that Raglan is trying to heal and improve Nola’s mind, not her body, and to some extent succeeds but unintentionally causes physiological damage to Nola. The mad scientist is to blame for unleashing horror through a female in Shivers, Rabid, and The Brood. Dr. Raglan certainly is a mad psychotherapist; he even has a faithful assistant like all mad scientists.

While the murderous brood are carrying out Nola’s subconscious desires, she is neglecting her child born from her marriage for her children born of her rage. One of the most horrific and gross images in the movie is when Nola licks the blood off of one of her newborn offspring. It was actress Samantha Eggar’s idea for her to lick the blood off of her offspring, the way a mother dog does, and was pleased that she was able to disgust the male crew. From a scholarly angle, you can view this as a maternal instinct being presented as horrific, or as the male perception of a maternal instinct being horrific. 

Samantha Eggar gives a great performance as Nola and is convincingly creepy as a true believer and fanatic of Dr. Raglan. She is not quite as over the top as Piper Laurie as Mrs. White, Carrie’s mom, in Carrie, but she is close. Oliver Reed is also good as the eccentric Dr. Raglan who becomes an uneasy ally of Frank, played by Art Hindle. The Brood has a great string based score by Howard Shore, reminiscent of Bernard Herman’s score for Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho. The special effects and make up effects hold up very well and look great, or gross depending on your sensibility. Despite what Roger Ebert says in his review, The Brood is not just a geek show. Yes, it will likely make you squirm and shift in your seat, but it also uses suspense to put you ill at ease. In particular, the scene in which Dr. Raglan tries to get Candy out of the secret room where the brood has taken her is evocative of a similar scene with Rod Taylor in Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds. The Brood, like Cronenberg’s previous horror movies, is an elevated exploitation film. This film has violence and scares and is shocking and even disgusting, but it is also a film of substance and troubling ideas. The Brood is quality horror that works on many levels.

Jurassic World: review

by A.J. 

Jurassic World mini-review, in which I am forced to paraphrase Roger Ebert’s review of North.

I hated this movie. I hated, hated, hated, hated this movie. I hated every audience insulting minute of this movie. I hated every joyless excitement free moment of this film from the very first shot to the very last shot. I hated the ultra-fake looking baby dinosaur claw that burst out of an egg within the first 90 seconds of the movie as if to tell me right away, “yes, we had 150 million dollars and no, we didn’t care about anything, especially how the dinosaurs look.” If they had blown that huge budget on getting B.D. Wong to reprise his minor role from Jurassic Park I’d be fine with that, but I don’t think that’s where the money went. I hated how this movie just lifted scenes from other movies instead of doing anything approaching mild originality. I hated the dinosaur they flat out made up for this movie, because the executives running park thought “real live dinosaurs, who cares? We’ll create bigger, scarier dinosaurs with superpowers and grasping hands. Yeah, that’s a great idea.” I hated how boring their made up super dinosaur looked. I couldn't tell it apart from other regular dinosaurs. By the way, when you make up a dinosaur, it’s called a dragon.

I hated the hipster character with glasses, a stupid mustache and half beard, and t shirt of Jurassic Park who goes on about how great the first park was (you know, the park that was never open to the public?) that was meant to placate me and insult me at the same time. I hated that all the women in this movie either cried or were eaten. I hated the unnecessarily mean death given to one female extra who took a moment to show concern for the boys we’re supposed to care about and was carried off by a flying dinosaur and eaten by different dinosaur. Wasn’t that cool? No, no it wasn’t Jurassic World. I hated how dull and bland the main characters were. I hated the stupid, idiotic plot about turning raptors into military weapons. I hated that people sat down, thought these things up (remembered other movies they saw), wrote it down, and someone said sure, this’ll work. I hate any mind that thought this could pass for entertainment. I hated whatever is in me that won’t let me just turn off a movie after I start it.

I haven’t hated a movie this much in an incredibly long time. This movie replaces M. Night Shyamalan’s The Visit for the worst movie I’ve seen this year. This movie made me wish I’d spent the night watching Jaws the Revenge and Birdemic. The only time you should ever watch Jurassic World is in the company of Crow T. Robot and Tom Servo.  

Life Itself Review

by A.J.

Last year on April 4^th, just before my birthday, I received the news that Roger Ebert had passed away. I was saddened more than I thought I could be by the death of someone I never knew. I did meet him once at a book signing in New York; I wrote about that experience and my thoughts and feelings about Roger Ebert in my tribute last year. I only met him once, never knew him, but I will always miss him.

This year, just before my birthday I received in the mail a messenger bag, t-shirt, and gift card to Steak ‘n Shake from the Life Itself production team for a small donation to the Indiegogo.com campaign to cover post production costs of Life Itself, the documentary about Ebert by filmmaker Steve James.

I was able to watch Life Itself streaming online in concurrence with its premiere at the Sundance Film Festival this past January, an additional perk of contributing to the production. I’m not sure at what point during the documentary I realized that I would not be able to give this film an “objective” review. Fortunately, as Ebert was apt to remind everyone, there is no such thing as an objective review.

It seems obvious that Steve James would be the one to make this film. James’s 1994 documentary Hoop Dreams was championed heavily by Siskel and Ebert. The Criterion DVD edition of Hoop Dreams contains their initial enthusiastic review, a special segment in which they accuse the documentary wing of the Academy Awards of corruption after Hoop Dreams was not nominated for Best Documentary (it turns out they were right), and the special show in which Ebert names Hoop Dreams the best film of the 1990’s.

Life Itself takes the structure of Ebert’s memoir of the same name beginning with the straightforward linear of childhood, youth, early career, before beginning anecdotes, jumping to the present, then back to the past. There are interviews with friends and colleagues and filmmakers. Roger Ebert was able to become friendly, if not friends, with filmmakers like Martin Scorsese, Werner Herzog and others. He helped a few personally when he could and they tell their stories too. There is, of course, a portion about Gene Siskel and the creation of the show that made them famous, even to people that didn’t follow critics. I do wish there was more about the show and its different versions, especially its final incarnation on PBS, and also how he dealt with being famous for being a film critic, a relatively normal job.

If you are a fan of Roger Ebert, or movies, or journalism, you will enjoy this documentary. It is a fitting tribute and portrait of a life that touched and influenced the lives of people he never meant and influenced movies and filmmakers even though he never directed one. As you can imagine the tone of the documentary shifts as it covers Ebert’s illness, the loss of his voice, and his death. After he lost the ability to speak, Roger Ebert reinvented himself in the most wonderful way with his website, his blog, and then twitter. Even though he could not speak, you could read his words and there was his voice. Now that he is gone I can still hear his voice.

Roger and Me

I met Roger Ebert once at a book signing in New York City in 2005. After telling some very interesting stories and answering questions from the crowd, he signed my copy of his book, Great Movies II, and my DVD of Citizen Kane, for which he recorded a commentary track. I told him that I cited his commentary in a paper I had to write about Citizen Kane. I told him that I’ve been watching At the Movies since I was 9 and I’ve seen a number of movies based just on his (and Richard Roeper’s) reviews. He told me, “I hope we don’t lead you astray.” I also told him that I was a film student and I hoped to one day make a movie that gets "Two Thumbs Up". He said, “I hope so too.”

I won’t go so far as to say that I felt like I knew Roger Ebert, but I did think of him as a mentor. I felt like if I ever met him again we would fall easily into a conversation about movies and in talking about movies we would be talking about ourselves too. I always felt like that would happen. The drive home from work was extra-long last Thursday after I heard that Ebert had passed away. I thought about why I had that feeling. Roger Ebert’s movie reviews were not just reviews. They were first person personal essays, the key word being “personal.” He was telling you about his experience with a movie, how it made him feel, and what it made him think about. Whether he was on television or in print he did not speak with authority but with knowledge and enthusiasm, and his enthusiasm was such that his words could become poetic. His tone was always casual, never didactic. He was able to capture some of the magic that is the movies.

I watched At the Movies, in all its forms, every chance I had. It was difficult since the local television stations would move the show all over their schedule. In college, when I often slept till noon or later on weekends, I made myself wake up  early on Sunday mornings to watch Ebert and Roeper talk about the week’s releases. I sat on the couch in my pajamas eating cereal and watching that show just like I did when I was 9. The internet made things easier. I could watch At the Movies online in case I missed it on TV, and I could read Ebert’s print reviews on his website. The backlog of his reviews, going back to 1967, was a treasure trove for me. I really enjoyed reading his reviews of notable movies from years past. I even enjoyed reading the bad reviews for movies that I liked; it was still great prose. When I had to write papers for my film classes, I tried to write like Ebert. When I started to write movie reviews, I tried to write like Ebert, without fear and always with honesty.

I learned so much from reading those reviews, watching him on TV, and reading his blog. I learned how to talk about movies and how to write about movies. I learned that the real job of a film critic is not to stand on a box and declare what is good and bad, but to recommend whether or not a movie is worth someone’s time and money. I learned that movies are made to entertain but they can also touch your heart and move your soul. Movies can be art. I learned that it’s okay to have an opinion, no matter who else agrees or disagrees. If you like a movie that no one else liked, or hated the most popular movie of the year, it’s okay. I learned that "best of" lists shouldn’t be taken too seriously but can still be fun. I learned that over time your opinion about a movie can change, and that’s okay too.

I know for sure that I’ll always be a little sad that my childhood hero is gone. I know for sure that Roger Ebert influenced countless film critics, journalists, filmmakers, and moviegoers. I know for sure that the two best parts of going to the movies are when the lights dim and the screen begins to move, and the conversation afterwards. I know for sure that I’ll still read his reviews online and in books. I know for sure that I’ll still try to write like him when I write about movies. I know for sure that when everyone else disagrees with me about a movie, I’ll think of Ebert and not tailor my opinion to anyone but myself. I know for sure that I’ll be going to movies or watching them at home for the rest of my life. And I know for sure that I have four people to thank for my love of movies and the major role they play in my life: my parents and Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert.

Thank you, Gene.

Thank you, Roger.

The Great Ones

So, the other night I sat down to watch Vertigo for the first time. (I realize this calls into question my earlier claim about having seen most of Hitchcock's films, but I promise that I have! Vertigo was the only really famous film of Hitchcock's that I hadn't seen.) I was already familiar with the plot of the film, I even knew the characters' names, because Vertigo is one of those films often classified as "Great." The "Great" films are the ones in the canon, the ones that get dissected in college courses, the ones that always show up on the "ten best..." lists.

I started thinking, what other "greats" have I missed. First, I thought of the canonical films I had seen: Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, 2001: A Space Odyssey... I concluded I had seen most of the obvious titles, so I tried to think of the ones I hadn't seen that are also considered great. The titles that came to mind first were Bride of Frankenstein, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, and The Shining.

Of course, I have reasonable excuses for never watching these movies. Bride of Frankenstein, and Frankenstein for that matter, are so affliated with Halloween that they seem like seasonal films. I never feel like watching them until October, but by then they are checked out from the video store - because apparently everyone else has the same inclination. As for McCabe, well I'm not a big Julie Christie fan, so I've just never been motivated to see it. And The Shining is obviously far too scary for me to actually watch.

There are many places to find a list of great films. Some lists, like AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies or past winners of the Best Picture Academy Award, have slightly more credibility than others like IMDB's Top 250 . I decided to peruse Roger Ebert's The Great Movies because I thought there would be a variety of foreign and American films, as well as old and new films. I was pleased to see that out of the 315 movies on Ebert's list, I had seen 137. While that is a pretty respectable number, I still hadn't seen over half of the list.

It's not quite time for New Year's Resolutions, but I'm making one for 2010. Starting now and throughout next year, I will attempt to watch as many of The Great Movies as I can. Some will be easy - that Apocalypse Now DVD has been sitting on my bookcase for years. Others will be more difficult - I really don't want to watch El Topo. I think the real challenge will be choosing to rent Bergman's Winter Light (Great) when I actually feel like renting Cockfighter (non-Great). There may be almost 200 of Ebert's Greats left for me to choose from, but there are thousands of non-Greats begging to be watched, calling out to me with their Siren song.