If Zombies vote Conservative and Werewolves are Catholic, what are Vampires?

Yesterday I was watching the excellent trailer for Cuba's first horror movie, Juan of the Dead, which makes quite explicit links between political revolution and fighting zombies, and it got me thinking that as with westerns and sci-fi, the horror genre can (if properly employed) be a fantastic instrument through which to analogise aspects of society or human issues.

Westerns are a particularly useful tool for investigating internal struggles. The open spaces, guarded characters, slow-burn conflicts and lack of law provide the ideal landscape on which to build characters exploring conflicts of very primal nature. Most obviously High Noon, which explores how far people will compromise their own moral framework when forced to choose between two evils.

There are myriad examples of sci-fi doubling for social commentary: Silent Running and Wall-E for humanity's inherent avarice and attitude to the environment, Soylent Green exploring the theme of limited resources, Planet of the Apes exploring the nature of humanity, and so on.

So why should horror be any different? In the modern American studio horror output exemplified by the Saw and Hostel franchises, serious social commentary is pretty thin on the ground. This absence of humanity in horror has infected the independent sector as well: Can anyone tell me that The Human Centipede and its forthcoming sequel have opened debate about anything other than how depraved the movies themselves are?

Horror as a genre is older than either westerns or sci-fi. Stretching back to the great gothic horrors of literature, the centuries-old stories of Frankenstein, Dracula and the like are still being replayed in different iterations and guises to this day. What contemporary horror has largely forgotten is that these classic stories have stood the test of time because they address issues at the very heart of what it means to be human, and that true horror is in humanity's conflict with itself.

Zombies were popularised in the 60's by George Romero and are enjoying a revival courtesy of films such as Shaun of the Dead and 28 Days Later (much though Danny Boyle protests, the mindless nature of the infected gives the film the trappings of a zombie movie, and if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, well...). Zombie movies offer an easy homology between the status quo, as represented by zombies, and those who see something wrong with it. All of the best zombie movies are a more or less direct attack on a failing of society.

The majority of werewolf films have explored the nature of guilt. From my personal favourites, Dog Soldiers and An American Werewolf in London, to alternative takes such as The Howling and Ginger Snaps, all lycanthropes in film have addressed their guilty consciences in different ways, whether railing against the monthly transformations or surrendering to the id.

Vampire movies, tackling as they do the topic of immortality, all explore the fear of growing old, not letting go of childish things. Vampires are invariably depicted not with the wisdom one of expect of an immortal, but with juvenile greed. Thanks in no small part to Anne Rice and Stephanie Meyers, vampires are regularly imagined as thirsting not only for blood, but also for glamour and power. Occasionally vampires are as pure predators (Blade 2 and 30 Days of Night, notably), and in these cases, the vampires are rather more fun and less objectionable: I found it very hard to sympathise with beautiful immortals played by R-Pattz, Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise, frankly.

So, can anyone recommend me some good, modern horror films which have something to say?

On AD'ing.

Below is an extract from an interview I undertook as part of an abortive attempt to write a book about AD'ing, one of the most misunderstood departments in the film and TV business, and where I made my bones. I may post more of these excerpts in future.

Some interesting thoughts from Nicki Ballantyne, one of the best AD's in the business:

ON THE ACTUAL WORK OF THE JOB, DIFFICULT DIRECTORS, AND THE DIFFERENCE IN TONES BETWEEN SETS

Ken: I've 1st'ed on smaller things, a few commercials and a few, well, about 6 or 7 now, actually, low-to-no budget features, and I've always felt it's a constant state of re-prioritisation. You've constantly got to assess where the various departments are at, and what's going on, and who needs a bit of pressure, and who's got more time to play with...

Nicki: Well, it's the classic thing: a director, especially if they're impatient, which a lot of them are, will sit there doing the Guardian crossword, and they realise that the DoP's maybe taken over his 20, 25, 30, 35 (or if it's Brian Tufano, 4 hour) lighting and they're going:

(adopts lofty tone)“Uh, Nicki, uh, why aren't we... why aren't we doing anything?” and I'll go:

“They're just putting a flag in there, so-and-so's having their wig touched up, there was a bit of a problem on the throat mic, whatever” and you can literally go “bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, and when those three things, four things, ten things are done, my love, we'll go for it, you know? We'll have it, we'll get it.”

It is a matter of keeping... on everybody's case.

I've done a few commercials, years ago, with Tom Horne who now makes big movies, and I just couldn't believe it, because I'd done dramas with him, and then I went and did commercials with him, and everybody was just sitting around drinking cappuccinos! At midday! And we were on set for 8! And I was like that (drops jaw).

“Guys, can we...” and they were going:

“Nicki, just... There's a really decent magazine over there. Have a read.”

The thing is that, much as I love the money (on commercials), I'm not very good at just sitting down, not doing anything, because I'll want to sleep. I'll just go to sleep, you know. It's better if I'm up there doing something. The bigger, to be honest, the bigger the set-up for me, the better. I mean, I did a massive thing for Granada years ago called Island At War, and, in a way, it's one of the best jobs I've ever done, in that we sort of took over the Isle of Man!

It kept you busy.

Yeah! We had German Kübelwagens, we had loads of extras, and it was period, which is great. It looked so great. You get such a buzz out of period dramas anyway, but... And I was literally calling the shots, you know, and the director was a lovely, lovely man called Peter Lydon, who's done some lovely work as well. You know, he would just sit back and just say: “let me know when you're ready”. We had massive setups. Massive. Big cast, fantastic cast, you know, with Phil Glenister, and I just loved it.

Rant/Review: Capricorn One and the state of the modern media.

This was originally posted to the Empire Online website in 2006


WARNING - this is as much a rant on the state of modern media, and a call to arms, as it is a review. If you are in the least bit cynical, or have the attention span of a 3 year old, stop reading now.

Upon running a search of the review forum, I must admit to being rather surprised to discover that no-one had yet posted a review of this classic 70's movie. Simply out of ignorance, most people assume it is science fiction (as indeed did I before watching it), although some will have an idea of the central premise. That is off-putting to most, perceiving it as slow paced, pre-Star Wars hokum (as the majority of 70's sci-fi indeed was). It actually premiered the year after Star Wars, in 1978. A shame, as the shift in the market which that film brought meant that, however you marketed this movie, it was never going to receive the attention it ought.

In the modern era of overhype and overexposure, it's almost a given that you will know the "big" twist before going into a movie. You have to seek out little-known films from several years BI (Before Internet) to truly experience that thrill. Either that, or you have to be a 7-year old with a very conscientious film-buff Dad (or Mum). I did not have that Dad (though I hope to be him someday), and I am not 7; I tracked this film down myself, remembering whisperings of it being actually rather good.

The film kicks off as you might expect, with a thoroughly immersive and realistic portrayal of the long countdown to the launch of the mission Capricorn One. The real central conceit of this film, however, it's raison d'etre, only gears up about 45 minutes in. And it's a belter - I remember someone on this very forum totally ruining the main premise/big twist of Soylent Green for me (another oft-forgotten 70's classic) by quoting the crucial line in their signature. Stupid, stupid, stupid. I watched Soylent regardless, and still loved it, yet I couldn't help but wonder how much more I would have enjoyed it if I hadn't read that one quote from Big Chuck.

So, you'll have guessed by now that I'm not going to tell you much about this film. I'm really not spoiling anything, however, by telling you that this film is about Capricorn One, the first manned mission to Mars. There are many films which clearly owe a debt to this movie, from the obvious, say Apollo 13, to the downright surprising (I would argue that Clear and Present Danger owes as much in tone and pacing to Capricorn One as it does to the Tom Clancy novel). It is staggeringly broad in ambition, both thematically and in terms of genre, and yet does not stumble in the way that so many other grandiose 70's flicks have (I'm thinking Planet of the Apes which, although fun, is frustratingly trite). The film is also scarily actual in many aspects, which is remarkable considering it has just hit 30. It does, however, have a rather unsatisfying ending, especially given what the film has been building towards for the previous 90 minutes.

Elliott Gould, perfectly cast here, takes the lion's share of the good dialogue, and has several scenes of quick-fire banter with various characters throughout the movie, albeit a little stilted on occasion. OJ Simpson's breakthrough role is nary an extended cameo: The number of lines he delivers over the course of the movie does not break into double figures. Nonetheless, his performance is rather better than you might expect from an ex-American football player. I will also tell you that this film incorporates, in its closing scenes, some of the most staggering feats of stunt flying and arial photography I have ever seen.

I know this is a bitty commentary on the film, not really a review, but to break the film down in any normal manner would be to give too much away and ruin it. I hope only to encourage you to watch it, and in so doing recognise that voyage of revelation which you can only experience when you haven't been spoilt.

I used to be a great reader of online movie websites. AICN, EmpireOnline, Chud, Cinescape, etc. I signed up to the new version of this website within 15 minutes of it going live. My fellow veterans will have noted that my use has dwindled dramatically in the last 9 months or so. Why? Because I'd forgotten what it was like to enjoy a film, instead of pre-empting, or even worse, knowing the film before I even set foot in the cinema. I have been enjoying films so much more since I stopped.

And so it is that I urge you, my fellow fans/buffs/geeks. Turn away from the websites. Discover films from your friends, your parents, your local Videosynchratic. Go and watch the films which you wouldn't normally think were for you, but have been talked up by people you trust. Because there is nothing more satisfying and fantastic than being surprised by a movie. These sites aren't just spoiling the movies - they're spoiling your love for them.