A few more thoughts about the It remake.

Strangely enough I find it very easy for me to use the upcoming IT movie as a kind of coat rack to hang all the little articles roaming on my mental desktop on.
I don't know anything about the upcoming movie, apart from what I’m telling you. So here it goes.

This article is going to delve a bit deeper into what we know so far. So be warned. Even though I haven't seen the movie, a lot of my musings can be considered spoilers.

Also if you haven't seen the 1990 mini-series or read the book you'd better stay away as well.

The trailer has landed! And, as I suspected, there are no surprises there. You only get a glimpse or two of Pennywise. But you never hear him speak. In the teaser of the trailer (that's a thing nowadays) you get a glimpse of IT's laughter - that's it.

I think that's a good thing. I think we've been spoiled enough as it is by knowing what the creature looks like in its (hah!) totality. Though I do have this nagging 'want' to see a bit of the charming IT. IT dresses like a clown for a reason after all: to lure children. But I'm still confident that that'll happen.

One thought that struck me when I saw It's face. Those lines across his eyes; what if they could move at will. Like drawing a cartoon face: if the eyebrows point down towards the nose the face looks angry. If those eyebrows are tilted up from the nose the face looks happy or sad.

A bit like Zach Snyder did with Rorschach in Watchmen, I wonder if it would look cool if Pennywise's face had the same movable feature.

Investigating the trailer

Anyway, if a movie has your interest you find yourself looking for clues. So I watched the trailer several times and noticed that the bloody bathroom is in it, Bowers and his psychotic friend is in it. The Georgie-scenes are pretty much the same as the book and the mini-series.

I loved that final 'They float'-bit, I do hope they include the moving photograph scene as in the mini-series.

The focus seems nicely balance between the three main children Bill, Ben and Eddie (and he's still asthmatic). They even added a nice ‘eighties’ scare with the projection-scene.

The trailer doesn't say much but show glimpses out of order. But the main feeling I got from it was one of satisfaction and trust. Satisfaction in the sense that this is the kind of movie I want to see. Trust because, due to its problematic beginnings (with the director-change and all (See my previous article: LINK)) I was afraid it might go the wrong way. Now I have something to go on.

But I’m not the only one who took an interest in this trailer. Right now it is the most watched trailer on youtube ever. Moreover, lots of people are investigating this trailer frame by frame looking for clues. Why do they do this? Because it’s fun! (LINK)

Investigating promo pictures.

If a pop-culture phenomenon sounds interesting to me I always try to find out as much as I can from it. For instance, I know every bit of trivia, theory, musing of the TV-show Lost.

So, in our current age when promotional pictures aren't those movie stills that used to hang outside cinema's trying to lure customers in; But are, in fact, used to excite people through the Internet to see a movie. One of the results is that people investigate every pixel of a promotional picture.

There are three kinds of promotional picture: The posed studio shots, the 'screen shots' from the movie itself and (nowadays) the twitter/instagram shots.

The first ones are best because they are usually in high resolution. So, for instance, this shot from 'the governor' from the Walking Dead allows you to take a gander at his bookcase and read the titles (and you'll notice a partially hidden bottle of water – a bit like that famous Downton Abbey picture). It won't tell you much except satisfying some curiosity. In the same vein you could look at a picture of Sansa Stark from Game of Thrones and count the diamonds on her necklace.

Then there are the direct shots from the movie. Less high resolution; so a lot of interesting things (like book titles) disappear in the background. But, on the plus side it is what is going to be on the screen.

So, take this picture for instance.

Beth has a key around her neck. Richie's eyesight is absolutely terrible. Ben (the scholar) is interested in astronomy. and the whole scene takes place in Bill's shed since he’s operating the projector.

So what's the key for? Is there going to be a scene in which Richie loses his glasses?

Again, this is useless information, but maybe it means something in the end and as such entices imagination and (as a result) excitement for the movie. Just to see if your predictions were right.

As a third and final type of promo picture are, nowadays, the twitter/instagram pictures.

If you read this blog you'll know that I'm a big fan of sorting stuff out: maps, infographics, painting reconstruction - when it comes to making stuff I like to focus on the setting of a movie.

So, happy I was when I saw this photo of the sewers.

It's only the outside, but it tells you a lot. For instance, taking a left here and a right there, there has to be a cut otherwise the shot runs out of set.

Then there's this other picture featuring the Stanley character.

If you know the story, you'll know that Stanley dies when he's an adult. Then why is this boy's face covered in blood in this picture. Is he going to die at a young age?

Again, why this scorning through promo pictures when, in the end, they don't tell you anything useful? A simple answer: because it's fun! It's fun to spot little details in advance before seeing the movie. 

This - Assuming, of course, that the promotional department knows what they are sending out and don't spoil too much. You see, there is also a fourth category of pictures: the spoiler pictures. So, for instance, a person taking a phone-picture from the set (usually outdoors) and slamming it on the internet. Those are equally fun if you don't mind to be spoiled. 

How did Sherlock fake his own death?' is a famous example of this.

But I find these pictures cheating. Investigating pictures are a lot more fun if they raise more questions than answers. They get you exited for the movie.

IT: a whole generation afraid of clowns.

Popular culture has this strange bonding element build in. Every generation has one or two catch phrases from pop culture that everybody knows.

It's fun to be human. I work with people from all walks of life from all over the world. And if there's one thing I now know for certain is that we are pretty much the same. We all love, care, regret, fear, and whatnot. But this is often difficult to see if you don't meet different people.

On a small Europeans scale, an example:

There once was an episode of the Smurfs in which Papa Smurf led a bunch of Smurfs on a journey to somewhere. Along the way one Smurf asked Papa Smurf: "Papa Smurf, is it far?" To which Papa Smurf replies: "No, not far!"

Then the Smurf asked again. And Papa Smurf replied with the same answer. And again. And again. Until, finally, Papa Smurf barks back: "Yes, it's very far!"

In my country you can literally (and I do mean literally) stand in a crowded street and shout:"Papa Smurf, is it far?" and you can bet your bottom dollar that several people will reply without thinking: "Yes, it's very far!" And all these people will be around the same age.

Now for a global example:

The Mist! When IMDB.com still had its message board there was a nice little thread going on there wherein people from all over the world told each other whether or not the people in their theatre clapped when the 'All hail king Ollie'-scene happened. And, as it turned out, from Iceland to China, people clapped.

And so did people in my country. I mean, we don't clap for anything. If a plane lands, somebody sings a song -we'll only clap if you freaking deserve it. But after 'that' scene we clapped our hands off.

 Farewell to the imdb messageboard.

IMDB is closed its message board February 20th - I'll be missing it. Because, to be honest, there were some wise words between the hatred. Take trolls, for instance, you’ve got to love ‘em.

On the message board of Disney’s Moana there was a wonderful little thread that started with a single question/statement: “She’s fat!” After that the troll posted only one more message to heat the fire and then just leaned back and watched people tumbling over themselves.

A troll is often a terrible person. But sometimes there is the humorous troll who can pinpoint an insecurity and abuse it. This happened in this Moana thread which was a delicious read.

Now IMDB has (finally) decided to close its message board. This was to be expected because, usually, the topics had very little to do with openly discussing a movie. For instance, I remember a person using this message board to spread his/her anti-abortion pamphlet. Whether you agree or not - a movie message board isn't the place for that. But I will miss it.

The 1990-version of IT is a prime example of this generational common link on a global scale. Due to Tim Curry's performance an entire generation (now between 30 and 40) is terrified of clowns. And when the trailer hit, twitter was having a field day with people commenting that they still hadn't bested their fear of clowns. I'm  not alone in the world in mistrusting those white-faced, red nosed bastards.

UPDATE: How could I forget "Leeloo Dallas Multipass?

UPDATE 2: Or counting how many times that woman

bows at the end of the Sound of Music?

That Tim Curry Cameo

So, what else is there to discuss about the new IT movie?

Let's take Tim Curry. Dr. Frankenfurther from Transsexual-vania himself. Rooster from Annie. And, considering this topic, of course, Pennywise the clown-IT.

The great actor has suffered a stroke a few years back. And even though people can come back from that (Kirk Douglas: a hundred years old and still going strong) it is a hard beat to beat. So people, online, are wondering if Curry could do a (voice) cameo. And I actually wonder the same.

Wouldn’t it be great if the original Pennywise would pass the torch , as it were. But, then again, Curry is such a legend – why bother him for such trivialities...

Epilogue

As I said in the introduction, I like using this upcoming IT-movie as a coat rack to hang all my little musings upon. I will be keeping an eye out for this movie ‘till September (I’ve already got my friends gathered for the premiere). Now, however, I am on two minds. I do not want to know too much. But it's fun investigate and to speculate - and use those speculations to write something to wonder about.

Martin Koolhoven’s Brims†one – a review

 Liz, a young mute mother finds her world turned upside down as a dark man from her past takes on the position of preacher in her rural village. He knows her and she, certainly, knows him –he’s out for vengeance, she’s out for blood.

Auteur

It’s always fun when you watch an auteur movie. Not to make too much of deal about it but far too often nowadays directors feel interchangeable to the movies they are making.

To be absolutely honest I feel that last year’s Spielberg’s the Big Friendly Giant (BFG) could just as easily have been made by somebody else. It lacked a lot of the elements that made it feel like a personal Spielberg movie.

So I respect it when a director simply takes credit for his work by putting his name next to the title. I don’t see it as arrogance but rather like a painter signing his work. Brimstone is Koolhoven’s picture. This is the picture he wanted to make.

It took seven years before Koolhoven got everything together to shoot this movie. It all started with the vague idea he mentioned in a Dutch talk show; that he: “wanted to make a western”.

Immediately my mind went back to one of the earliest (and possibly only) Dutch foray on the western front: the 1914 silent movie Telegram uit Mexico. A nice attempt at the developing genre back then – but obviously shot on the Dutch beach instead of the Mexican prairie (It does have one amazing (accidental) smoke effect shot that I wish more movies would use). You can watch it here: LINK.

Loving westerns

Now, after seven years, Koolhoven has finished his movie: and it’s very good. Not perfect mind you, but definitely not terrible or average. For starters you can marvel at Koolhoven’s pictural love for the genre as he frames delicious shot after delicious shot. All the cinematographic tropes of yesteryears make an appearance and if you are a western fan you can spot quite some influences. There are the landscapes, the repoussoir, the reveal shots and some fascination things his cameramen did with a drone. Visually Brimstone is a feast for the eyes.

Then there are the scriptural tropes. There is a saloon, some working girls, a firefight at high noon and, of course, the eternal quest for gold. But that’s just icing on the cake. Because the real story Koolhoven is telling is far more timeless than the mere ol’ west as I’ll mention later.

Lacking script (sometimes)

The script, however, is slipping ever so often. Carice van Houten’s and Kit Harington’s character’s, for instance, certainly have a need to be present but they feel underwritten.

Even though I must admit that –oblige me- turning to their famous roles in Game of Thrones these two actors are having quite a time playing mirror opposites to their Westeros counterparts.

Carice is basically playing a ‘weak’-in the sense of broken after years of abuse- woman. While Kit gets a chance to play a (lovable) bastard. His character might have a good heart somewhere but overall I still wouldn’t trust him completely.

Then there is the Guy Pearce character. His preacher is evil incarnate and therefore a bit one dimensional. But whenever he starts to chew scenery (and he does, a lot) he manages to lure you into his dark eyes and dark heart. It’s only when you leave the theater that you realize that his character is pretty much the weakest of the bunch. Other things that are slipping in the script are one or two coincidences that don’t really work out (which I can’t spoil) and things that make you wonder after the fact (why is the preacher is such a great shot for instance).

According to the gossip column Guy and Carice got together during this movie. You can’t see the love blooming on screen though, Guy’s character is terribly cruel to her.

And then there’s the structure. Chronologically this movie goes from 3-2-1-4. Other reviewers have asked why Brimstone couldn’t simply start at the beginning of the tale? I wonder a bit too, I must admit. But, then again, like Nolan’s Memento this movie would actually be rather straightforward if it did. Starting the picture at the third act gives it a nice ambiguity that helps the rest of the film.

But overall the script of this movie is solid enough to bring a thrilling tale to the screen. There are numerous callbacks to previous events, twists and turns and even a satisfying –though bleak- final confrontation. It’s clear that Koolhoven (who also wrote the script) had a lot of fun connecting dots as any good script should have. I argue that he missed one or two little things.

But, to counter that, the script of Brimstone does take some daring chances by (A) making the main character mute, (B) showing brutality against females and (C) actively attacking perversion of faith. Each and every one of these chances pays off.

Dakota Fanning’s: Liz.

Dakota Fanning is, as we all know, a former child actress. And like any child actress there’s always a worrisome period between the work they did as a child and the adult parts. We all know the horror stories of former child actors who went off the track during that period. But Dakota Fanning appears to have risen above that. True she isn’t the blockbuster magnet she was in the years of Hide and Seek. But she does appear to have made the transition from child actress to adult actress quite well.

You can believe Fanning’s character to be a loving mother. And her doe-like eyes are one of the great assets of this movie. Hardly ever speaking, Fanning’s acting is all about expression. As the dangers enter her life her eyes tell the audience what she’s planning and what she expects.

Additional appreciation has to go to Emilia Jones who plays the younger version of Liz. Not only do the two actresses look eerily similar (at times I thought I was watching Elle, Dakota’s younger sister) but they together complete the Liz character: Emilia Jones suffering through the past, Dakota taking back the future.

Females in a man’s world.

To start off; a lot more men die in this movie than women (and even two men I really wanted to survive). But when it comes to injustice (and death) it truly are the women who suffer the most in Brimstone.

Tygo Gernandt is a great Dutch actor who plays the bleeding crawling guy. 
Spoiler alert: His character dies! That actor just can’t catch a break. He died in Koolhoven’s other movie Oorlogswinter. He died in that other Carice van Houten film Black Death. He died in numerous Dutch movies. Will he ever survive?

One could criticize that women suffer too much in this movie. That it’s, in a sense, a victim to its own message. Like showing Christ’s torture excessively in Mel Gibson’s the Passion made audience members wonder about the faith behind the movie.

I disagree. For starters Brimstone has to show this violence to make the dangers Liz has to face real. But second, I feel, that this movie holds up a spyglass to the past and shows us how far we’ve come as a species.

But we’re not there yet! Because this movie takes the bold move of not empowering a lot of the women in their struggle under male authority parallels can be drawn to contemporary tales of women suffering from the hands of men. While, at the same time, this movie makes it crystal clear that not all men are bastard.

But, unfortunately –they do all die in the end.

So, by showing this violence Brimstone, to me, rises above male/female inequality and tells us that in this unequal world there is still goodness to be found. But maybe I’m naïvely optimistic. At least the movie triggers a discussion.

Perversion of faith.

What initially drew me most to this movie is the perversion of faith. I consider faith a good thing. Believing that there is an entity looking out for us is a reassuring thought. Religion, however, I consider a bad thing. Putting your faith in the ‘hands’ of other people or a centuries old book isn’t the wisest thing to do in my humble opinion. People tent to put away with common sense when they do.

So to see a preacher justifying himself time and again that ‘this is what God allows/wants’ is fascinating to watch. Again a parallel can be drawn to contemporary terrorists who do the most atrocious things in the name of God. 

Honestly, what God would allow somebody to enter her kingdom who tortures for pleasure?

Using biblical chapters for the four parts Koolhoven’s movie underlines this. Though a bit elitist, perhaps, using these titles does hammer home the message that people in power –males, religion, preachers- can easily turn dark. Those who are without power, therefore, are forced to be strong even though, in the end, their newfound strength might be their downfall.

Conclusion

So what did I think about Martin Koolhoven’s Brimstone. It has great shots, fantastic acting, and a script that, even though solid in the end, is sometimes skipping the beat a bit. Nonetheless if you enjoy your westerns dark and dramatic Brimstone is a great movie to watch.

One final confession: I’m not a fan of westerns (the John Wayne type). But Brimstone is right up there next to the fantastic acting piece of The assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Henry Ford.

Horror movies and space/place.

To understand this article it is of the utmost importance that you’ve seen both Halloween (1978) and The Shining (1980). Otherwise it’ll probably won’t make much sense. Also, this automatically labels this article as a bit of a spoiler for those movies.

I want to write a bit about the usage of ‘space’ and ‘place’ in horror movies. Horror movies are the underdog of the movie industry. We all love them (to some extent) but when we are asked to name a favorite movie the likes of the Exorcist never comes up. It’s always the Shawshank redemption (even though this movie borrows heavily of classic horror movies).

So, right here, right now I want to explain how horror movies use the elements of ‘space’ and ‘place’ to manipulate the audience. But before I do that I have to explain the difference between the two.

Space and place

What’s the difference I use here for space and place? Space is the room you are in. Place is the spot you are inside this room. So, as an example, I’m currently in a coffee shop in Los Angeles (space) and I’m sitting at the left window, second from the door (place).

How do horror movies fit into this? Simple; I argue (and many with me) that the space/place is essential to a good horror movie.

Imagine a slasher movie: the killer is hunting the main girl. There is nobody to help her. She’s locked in a certain space.

The girl is running from the killer and suddenly finds herself in a room full of guns and knives. She’s ready to fight back. She finds herself in a certain place.

The Hitchcockian twist

But none of this is very satisfactory if you don’t incorporate the great director Hitchcock’s sense of suspense.

Suspense, according to Hitchcock, relies heavily on the knowledge of the audience. So the weapon room, in this example, has to be shown to the audience beforehand. Otherwise it would come ‘out of the blue’ and that could harm the movie.

It would be like the killer hunting the girl and she ‘happens’ upon invincible super armor and an infinite shotgun: Bye-Bye-killer.

So this is something to keep in mind when dealing with space and place. If the space is abandoned, the audience needs to know it’s abandoned. If there is, for example, a hiding place somewhere; the audience needs to know or expect this.

Space in a horror movie

So it’s important to know the spaces in a horror movie. These spaces could be a school, a house, a little league field. Anything goes. Places, in this sense, are the lockers in the little league dressing room, the cupboard in the house or the toilets in the school: parts of the whole.

So to take a horror movie-genre trope: the haunted house. In all kinds of horror movies these are houses that are meant to be lived in, yet, nobody’s there. The Shining, House on Haunted Hill, the Haunting, The Others; all big houses and only a handful of people are there.

This unsettles the audience.

Another great trope is the graveyard.  This is a place where we –in real life- don’t usually go because there aren’t a lot of people there and, moreover, the people there aren’t in the mood for talking.

So place, in this sense, is finding a spot on the world map where there are very few people. So, nowadays, we’ve got horror movies in ancient temples, spaceships, at the bottom of the sea, haunted houses, graveyards, off the map places (rural) and whatnot.

Basically, when places are concerned, a horror movie looks for a spot where not a lot of people are present or (when looking a 100 feet) allowed.

Place in a horror movie

Places then are far more interesting.

Sure, the girl can find herself in a graveyard chased by zombies (spaces) and hide inside a small crypt (place). But that’s using the place (graveyard) as the main motive.

If you turn it around and make the place the main motive? Then the space can be anything!

Take Halloween for instance.

This movie takes place in one of the safest spaces in America: the suburbs.

All neat and tidy houses with a freshly cut lawn and fresh paint. Each and every person who lives there has a steady job and is intelligent enough to keep their income.

By introducing a danger into this environment the focus of the movie immediately shifts to spaces. Where can Jamie Lee hide?

Jamie Lee Curtis runs away from her brother Michael Myers in her safe environment. She hides in a room she considers safe. Yet, he finds her. She hides in a smaller room she considers safe. Yet, he finds her. She hides in a closet –holding her legs like a fetus, being as small as she can be. Yet, he finds her. But this time (because she can’t hide any smaller) she fights back.

There is a reason why Halloween shows all those empty rooms at the end of the movie: it underlines the ‘rape’ (for want of a better word) of the safe environment. A safe environment that grew smaller and smaller with each passing minute.

Place + space in a horror movie

Then there’s the combination of space and place.

Take Stanley Kubrick The Shining for instance:

This movie is known for its unreliable placing. For instance, Ullman’s office is in the middle of the hotel –yet it has a window looking out. Danny is riding his tricycle around the hall and after three corners he should be outside the walls and yet he is still in the hotel. The placing (blueprint) of the Overlook Hotel doesn’t make any sense.

This could be intentional or unintentional –nobody really knows.

  I wouldn’t call this Stephen King’s The Shining. Not because King hates the movie. But mainly because Kubrick changed so many things (plus he pictured it) that it really is his signature on the movie –not King’s novella.

What we do know is that The Shining takes place at a scary ‘space’ – a haunted hotel with very few people inside it. Now, considering that the places are unreliable (intentional or not). And the fact that, for the main characters, the places become smaller and smaller (a freezer for Jack, a cupboard for Danny). It is no wonder that The Shining is heralded as one of the best horror movies of all time. It uses the best elements from both space (a haunted spot on the world map with few people in it) and place (destroying the safe environment by shrinking it) to the utmost effect.

Conclusion

What I wanted to try with this little article is for readers to forget all about the blood and gore in a standard horror movie. Horror isn’t about blood, never has been. Horror is about inducing fear into the viewer. One of the best ways of doing this is by taking away that which is reliable. So a house becomes dangerous if it is haunted (space) and more so if it shrinks your safe havens (place). In the end horror has every intention of making you feel uncomfortable and the first trick in the book is to make that what you know scary.