Mixed tape movies: I-Spy

In the eighties it was the-thing-to-do to make a mixed tape (like an mp3 but touchable, always in need of a pencil and definitely cooler). On it you would make a little playlist of all the cool songs. Now the trick was to make each song correspond with the rest of the tape. In this post I will try to do the same with movies.

Every once in a while I will select a general topic and select movies to accompany it. As you can see the more child-friendly movies are at the start of the day, but  when night falls: ‘here be monsters’. Please feel free to give suggestions of other unknown movies.

One rule though: Auteur themes like ‘Shakespeare’ or ‘James Bond’ are not allowed. ‘Spy-movies’, naturally, are.

Theme: Spy movies
Spying.  We’ve all done that. But some people do it for a living. Some people are actually good at it. In this list I will name my favorite spy movies.

08:00-10:00
Harriet the Spy: A fun movie to start the day with. Straight from the child-spy overdose films of the late 90s early 00s (Agent Cody Banks, Get a clue and others).True it is all feels a little convenient at times. But it’s a children’s movie: it’s all about having fun and adventures.

10:00-12:00
Cloak and Dagger: I always enjoyed this movie because it took the threat serious. Yes it’s a children’s movie but the stakes are very real. That and seeing Dabney Coleman as a superior American Bond is well worth the ticket of admission.

12:00-14:00
Redboy 13: A strange B-movie for this list but a charming one nonetheless. It’s quite the smart Bond-spoof that doesn’t shy away from critique (often targeting the American Way). Just to hear one character state something as: ‘Un-American’ is hilarious.
Plus this movie has a great opening song and a good usage of Gustav Holst’s the planets.     
 
14:00-16:00
Alex Rider: Stormbreaker: I always liked this movie. Maybe it’s because –the great- Stephen Fry got to play a ‘Q’. As a Bond spoof this movie fails terribly. The main villain is a tremendous cash-grab by Mickey Rourke (he really is rather annoying). And the potential sequel-strands this movie deals out are uninteresting. Yet the action and the humor make up for a lot. Plus every great British actors seems to be in it.
 
16:00-17:00
Teen agent: The ultimate teen-who-becomes-a-spy-movie. And yes it is absolutely bonkers brilliant. We’ve got struggles with a condom, X-ray glasses, wall climbing sneakers, a villainess with a deadly necklace and a main plot that would fit nicely in any Bond movie.
It is a delicious movie that is driven by a creativity that knows what a pubescent mind wants. This is one of those rare movies that actually delivers what it wants to give its target audience.
 
17:00-19:00
Undercover Blues: Two retired spies on holiday with their baby are called to do ‘one last job’. One thing this movie does very well is playing with the concept that the main characters are unbeatable super-spies. This can be both comforting and annoying. This movie, however, accepts it and plays with it.
There’s never any real danger and the movie knows it. Instead this movie uses its lightheartedness to direct the ‘super-spy-powers’ to a low-life criminal calling himself Morty/Muerte (a great role by Stanley Tucci). A hilarious comedy ensues.
 
19:00-21:00
Jumpin Jack Flash: Talking about comedy, the Queen of comedy shouldn’t be left out. Playing an IT-bank employee Whoopie Goldberg is the swearing  -grounded in the eighties- centerpiece of this movie. She carries this weak-plotted movie on her shoulders as if it is nothing. Just to see her ‘cancel the message’ in the end is hilarious to behold and, yet, there’s quite some tension to be found as well.
 
21:00-23:00
The 39 steps (1979): Talk about a forgotten movie. I only remembered the clock-hanging scene but googling it –in our current time- only brought forth the obvious.

Yet this movie is one of the best (albeit very loose) translations of the original novel. I has the common man trying to save the free world and he has to stop a bomb in the most dangerous way possible to achieve it.
 
23:00-01:00
Tinker, tailor, soldier, spy: A great book, an even better movie. Cat-and-mouse is one of the main things mentioned when dealing with the topic of spying. Well, Tinker, tailor is most certainly that. I prefer the remake over the Alec Guinness first version simply because it’s a bit faster moving.
This is one of those movies where the acting overshadows the (already clever) script. You just have to sit down and let this movie take you hook, line and sinker.
 
01:00-03:00
James bond: Goldfinger: I originally reserved this spot for The Departed (or its original) when I realized I didn’t have a single Bond movie in my spy-list. Goldfinger is the best Bond-film, hats down. It has everything from smart gadgets to some actually smart sleuthing and a villain’s plan that –actually- makes sense.
True, it’s outdated (and probably a feminist nightmare of a movie) but still it shows James Bond at his best.
 
Honorable mentions:
There are far too many examples of spy movies to name here (so maybe I’ll return to this topic one day). I haven’t mentioned a single movie from Michael Caine’s portfolio. Nor have I mentioned a single Hitchcock film. Basically I wrote down the movies I like to return to time and again. Nothing beats: “my name is Muerte!”
So there are no ‘honorable mentions’ this time around because the spy-pool is still filled with gems waiting to be uncovered.

Strange movie deaths quiz

Let’s have a little quiz, shall we?

One of the perks of watching a lot of movies is that you see screenwriters getting more and more creative as time goes on. Writers always try to come up with something that hasn’t been attempted/done before. And nowhere has this been more apparent than in the morbid niche of movie storytelling that is: the death scene.
I must have seen thousands of people meet their maker on the silver screen during my short life on this earth. Explosions, gunshots, you name it. But there are far more creative ways to kill a human –as movies tell us.
So here I wish to have a little (morbid) quiz. I state ten causes of death and in the spoiler tag below it is the movie it came from. See how many you get.

Theme: houses
Ah the age old fact that most accidents occur around the house. Now usually this implies appliances like daddy’s new high-powered chainsaw (maybe in combination with some alcohol). But for now I wish to use the thematic of actual (parts of) houses causing the demise of a character.

1. Death by falling house.

The wizard of Oz.

2. Death by greenhouse.

The hand that rocks the cradle.

3. Death by sinking church.

Oscar and Lucinda.

4. Death by lightening-rod.

The omen.

5. Death by chimney.

Burnt offerings.

6. Death by window.

Ghost.

7. Death by slipping in the bathroom.

Final destination.

8. Death by garage door.

Scream

9. Death by booby trapped house that leads to a bone chipping rollercoaster (honestly).

Nothing but trouble.

Don’t watch this movie – just don’t! Preserve your sanity.

10. Death by falling from the ground floor of a house.

Up.

‘Common’ deaths.
For this first entry I wish to include a small list of strange movie deaths that, apparently, happen all the time. Just to point out that people sometimes think alike.

Strangely enough death by dild adult toy is rather commonplace. (Deathgasm, Crimes of passion, Seven).
Death by cows is rather common too (Tamara Drew and The lion King).
Death by barbeque (The village of the damned and Final Destination 2).
Death by heart attack is actually rather rare in Hollywood fiction. But it does occur, sometimes (The Poseidon adventure, the Big Lebowski, FX: murder by illusions).
Death by rapid aging (Tangled and Indiana Jones: and the last crusade).
Death by bowsprit (Jaws: the revenge and The little mermaid).
Death by eating (la grande Bouffe and again: Seven).

Colossal – a review

A former journalist Gloria is on a road to self-destruction as she moves back to her parents house in her old home town. Once there she learns of a colossal monster attacking Seoul and the strange connection that appears to exist between her and the being.

This movie came out of the left field. Some promotion, some early reviews – but still it went completely under my radar. Which is a good thing, because this is one of those movies you don’t want to know too much about. It’s partly about a monster –that much I can say because ‘the beastie’ is on the poster.

A second thing I can share is that this isn’t your typical Godzilla-clone. Like Cowboys and Aliens tried to mix up the sci-fi and western genre years ago. Or, more recently, the combination of monster movies and Vietnam war movies in Kong: Skull island. Colossal can best be described as an indie-monster movie. It has all the little ‘quirks’ of small town drama like Fried green tomatoes, Trainwreck or Sister’s keeper but with an impressive monster thrown into the mix.

That’s the charm of the movie. This is a movie where the (smart) story comes first. Together with some interesting character elements –I’ll come to that- it paints a complete picture that happens to have this fantasy element in it.

‘Indie’ in this sense isn’t an insult. Most indie movies don’t have the funding for impressive shots or effect so they rely highly on acting. Colossal, however, does have the funding to give the audience some impressive monster effects, yet stays grounded in the well written and acted character that are the tradition of successful indie movies.

The acting

Normally the bulk of my reviews focus on the writing element of a movie. But apart from some nitpicks I’ll mention later on (as an afterthought) the writing is solid across the board. This is particularly so in the character-development. Each and every character is well rounded. And even though one character in particular appears to shift sides back and forth throughout the movie (I have to stay vague here) this actually created a duality that I enjoyed for the character. 

Especially Anne Hathaway is tremendous as a woman (also producer on the film) who conquers a piece of the Marvel/DC-cake by giving the audience a new heroine to root for. Her character is an alcoholic in the purest sense of the word.

Jeff Bridges once said that (to paraphrase): playing an alcoholic is playing somebody who is an alcoholic pretending not to be; hiding the secret.

Hathaway’s character is an adult with a lot of problems –that much is clear the second she opens the door and is confronted by her (as a contrast) too perfect to be true boyfriend Tim (Dan Stephens). From that moment on you root for Hathaway’s character to piece her life back together. And you hate her each time she succumbs to her addiction again.

This is a fun part for Hathaway to play. Especially since I only know her as the eternal ‘Goodie-twoshoes’-actress/person that I think she is in real life.

Playing Fantine in les Miserables or both a sweet princes in the Princess diaries and Elle Enchanted. I for one was hoping for a less perfectly sweet character for her to play (In the same vein that I want Emma Watson to play a megalomaniac Bond villain). And finally I got my wish. Hathaway’s Gloria has many faults and she swears and drinks her way through without losing the human traits like shame, humility or even lust.

Dan Stevens in this sense has the lesser part of the movie. He is the embodiment of the perfect boyfriend. Sweet, smart, rich, caring and English; he’s a lottery ticket and, as such, a bit boring. Nevertheless, a delicious little scene near the end exposes his Tim’s weaknesses filling the character out a bit after the fact.

The juiciest male role in Colossal has to go to Jason Sudeikis’s Oscar. This actor is branching out from comedy in a good way.

It’s a very complex part to play because a lot of the pain en emotions stay hidden. One or two clues are highlighted but overall you are constantly relying on the actor to bring forth an explanation for his actions. Which, as we know screenplays go, can be reliable or unreliable

I think Sudeikis manages this balancing act quite well. Some critics might disagree, but I think he was perfect for the part and a nice counter to Hathaway’s character. 

The story

Now there are one or two faults in the story. There always are.

The two friends Garth (Tim Blake Neslon) and Joel (Austin Stowell) are well written but they exit the script a bit sudden. There’s no real resolution. Joel in particular feels like he had a storyline that was left out of the final reel.

Then there are one or two coincidences during the finale about being at a certain place at a certain time that couldn’t be helped. But that’s all very forgivable since there are so many written gems in the movie: (e.g.) a person being absolutely foul to another person and still having the self-indulgence to call the other one a ‘douche’ for talking back. Or the fact that this movie managed to make footprints, of all things, emotionally terrifying. These are just two of the many fun moments Colossal has in store.

 I do wish to award my annual bad parenting award to the parents of that kid near the end.

Directing

Directing then is solid. Written and directed by Nacho Vigalondo he takes great care in establishing shots. With only four main sets he uses the spaces to get the maximum effect out of them by (apart from set dressing) holding the camera back most of the time to let things play out for itself. One of the most hilarious examples of this is the ‘roll up’-scene Hathaway performs that is equally hilarious as tense –because it comes at the exact time the audience is given the chance to figure things out.

The big monster scenes then are smartly played though ‘social media’ feeds. This way the people on the ground are filming the monster in the sky. So –budget wise- you don’t have to spent tons of money on crowd scenes.

Plus, because these images are on a handheld device the globalness of the event becomes intimate.

You can tell that the director had fun trying to get great shots without overstretching the budget (a lot of looking up shots where the monster is concerned). And the story is written for just this approach. It’s the story of Gloria – not Battleship Potemkin (when talking about crowd scenes).

Gloria’s story is enough to keep the audience interested and there is more than enough monster in it to keep us satisfied. 

To summarize

Colossal is a small movie featuring a big monster. It has a great script with deliciously written characters that are brought to life by a dedicated cast. Hathaway and Sudeikis have fun playing more layered characters than they are often known for (good girl, comedy man respectively). And both of them, with the script, give us a smart indie monster movie in our current blockbuster battlefield of Marvel versus DC.

It's fresh and fun -and people will love it for the indie hit it is. But, to be honest, most of the world will forget it. The best comparison I can give is: Safety not guaranteed. Great film, nobody watched it.

The thirteen choices to make writing a horror movie villain.

Disclaimer: This is one of my writing exercises
I always wanted to write a ‘name-dropping’-article. Just to see if I could get away with it. So here it is.
In this article I'm constantly referring to various movies. I'm doing this because I wanted to create a 'blue' article and see how far I can take it (also by doing it ‘from mind’ instead of putting the Internet to use). I also wanted to get my knowledge of obscure (horror) movies out there. If you are like me and like to skewer the web looking for unknown cinematic treasures: you’d want to share your finds. I hope this is the article for you.

Let's write a horror movie villain! My mind is always buzzing. And as a little exercise I wanted to see if I could come up with a nice little villain of my own. But to do this I wish to take you -dear reader- along with some of the best known horror movie villain tropes; thirteen of them to keep it simple. Per paragraph I will then choose an attribute for my villain. In the end I’ll sum it all up and create a little (bad) story out of it.
So to paraphrase the great Stephen King: ‘Let me take you by the hand. I think I know the way.’

Introduction

Looking at the sheer variety of horror movie villains one could make quite the list. There are quite a few templates to choose from (like the blackboard in Cabin in the woods):

Aliens (Grabbers, Don't go to sleep, Invaders from Mars, The faculty)
Inter-dimensional beings (The mist)
Eternal beings (Deathwatch, The stand, White Noise)
Demons (Sinister, Incarnate, Shadow Builder, Cameron’s Closet, Deliver us from Evil)
Angels (Constantine, The prophecy)
Fallen angels (Angel heart, The Devil's advocate, The ninth gate, Devil)
Sons of fallen angels (Rosemary's baby)
Cults (The Stepford wives, The believers)
Death itself (Final destination)
Witches (Susperia, Mercy)
Male witches (Warlock)
Ghosts (We are still here, Darkness)
Spirits (Stigmata)
Creepers (Don't be afraid of the dark, Bleeders)
Cannibals (Cannibal holocaust, Ravenous)
Psychopaths (Phenomena, Trauma, Funny games, Slaughter high)
Emotional psychopaths (Patrick)
Immortal psychopaths (Halloween)
Immortal psychopaths without a body (Mirrors)
People pretending to be immortal psychopaths (Behind the mask: the rise of Lesley Vemon)
Crazy people (The crazies)
Obsessed people (Swim fan, roommate, the crush)
People losing it (Barricade, Secret window, Berberian sound studio)
Politicians (The dead zone)
Monsters (Cloverfield, Monsters, Monster, The decent)
Insects (Arachnophobia)
Giant insects (Eight legged freaks, Ants)
Fish (Piranha, Bait)
Giant fish (Deep blue sea)
Reptiles (Komodo, Crocodile)
Giant reptiles (Alligator, Dinocroc, Lake Placid)
Birds (the Birds)
Cats (Tales from the dark side)
Humans (You're next,  Das cabinet des Dr. Calligari, The tenant)
Humans who made a pact (In the mouth of madness)
Humans with supernatural powers (Firestarter)
Giant humans (Attack of the 50.000 feet woman)
Small humans (The incredible shrinking man)
Mutated humans (The Lawnmower man)
Human who can transform into cats (Sleepwalkers)
Human turned into a creatures (Swamp thing)
Human turned into insects (The fly)
Insects turned into men (Mimic)
Fabled creatures (Exists, Wendigo, Leprechaun)
Killer body parts (The hand, Idle Hands)
Trees (the Evil dead)
Fruit (Attack of the killer tomatoes)
Foodstuff (The stuff)
Inanimate objects (the Bed that kills, Maximum overdrive)
Scientific experiments (Morgan)
Zombies (Dawn of the dead, Dance of the dead, Detention of the dead, Resident Evil)
Not quite zombies but close (28 days later, Cell)
Reanimated corpses (Frankenstein)
Vampires (Fright Night, The reflecting skin, The night flier)
Lesbian vampires (Daughters of Darkness, Lesbian vampire killers)
Werewolves (The wolfman, Love bite, Dog Soldiers)
Invisible men (The invisible man)
No villain whatsoever (Triangle)

Trust me, the ones you missed are scattered throughout the article.

I’ll only mention a movie once throughout.

Sequels aren’t allowed in this article.

and many, many others - I couldn’t even come up with a zombie torture redneck family.
But basically it all comes down to two basic archetypes: human or non-human.

1. Human or beast?

I like a monster or two; like the Kraken (Deep Rising, The beast), The Blob (The blob) or transformed human (The relic). But if you'd ask me directly I would say that I prefer my killers to have a bit of humanity in them. A human brandishing a knife (Prom night) –to me- is far scarier than any angry beastie (Critters).

So a girl created in a lab (Species and Splice). A kiddy fiddler burned to death by an angry mob (Nightmare on Elm Street). A slow child who drowned due to neglect (Friday the 13th). Or a girl murdered because of her psychic powers (The ring).

Each and every one of these characters are interesting to me because they were (once) ‘normal’ human beings.

So the first rule I wish to take from this paragraph is this: Number one: The villain is human.

Horror is one of the few genres that occasionally likes to dabble in anthology tales. So one movie containing several separate stories (Creepshow, House, The midnight hour, Campfire tales). Usually with one main story to keep it all together like a crypt keeper telling tales (Tales from the crypt) or a wandering cat (Cat’s eye). This is a simple matter of deciding on the format you are going to use.

2. Male or female?

Gender is an easy choice: male or female. Female villains allows the story to take on some feminism tropes like love (Lady in white), revenge (Fingerprints, Thinner, The grudge, Drag me to Hell), the want for a mother (Il orphanto), a lover (Orphan) or a child (Mama, Whoever Slew Auntie Roo, Dead Silence). Male villains allows more brutality for the final execution of the victims (Nine feet) often because of unfulfilled desires (Cherry falls).

This is currently changing as men and female are slowly equalizing in rights. But, for now, the rule of thumb still remains: male villains are a quick bloodbath (The hills have eyes) females prefer a lengthy psychological torture (The woman in black). I'm a boy, so I'll make an arrogant choice and say that I want my villain to be male. Number two: The villain is male.

3. Adult or child?

What do Michael Myers, Jason and Samara have in common?

Not to mention: Milo (Milo), Cage Creed (Pet Semetary), David (Godsend) and many others.

Not only are they all dead and brought back to life again as some sort of ghost. They are also, on a mental level, all children. Now I've always loved the concept of killing kids. These movies are scary not only because of the innocence (Bloody Birthday, the Children, Wicked little things, The innocents, Fragiles, Who can kill a child!) or that they can get away with a lot more than adults can (Mikey, Home Movie, Daddy's girl). But also because they do not truly grasp the adult notion of right and wrong and life and dead (that's why both Michael Myers and Jason are childlike in their mental grasp of the world).

Hannibal Lector (The silence of the lambs) might be mad as a hatter. But he certainly knows that his actions have consequences (the same goes for Hughe Warriner in Dead calm). It's a lot scarier if the killer can't grasp the responsibility of his/her actions (like the famous cartoon Lonesome Lenny once said – channeling Steinbeck’s Lenny: "Once I had a little friend"). So let's go with that. Number three: The villain is a child or childlike.

One of the most basic rules of horror fiction is this: ‘what is safe is wrong!’. Children (Children of the corn, Beware! Children at Play) are considered safe. So horror movies have great fun turning this common notion upside down and turning kids dangerous. In horror movies white is often black and light is often dark so everything we take for ‘safe’ turns dangerous.

Some examples:

Toys (Annabel, Robert the doll)

Clowns (IT , Clownhouse)

Nannies (Nanny, Emelie)

Professionals (Maniac cop, The dentist, Highway to hell, The ambulance, Riget)

Holidays (April fools, Happy birthday to me, Valentine’s day)

Family members (Mother’s day, Stepfather)

Fairytales (Snow white terror, The company of wolves)

Legends (Rare exports, Krampus, Sint, Trick ‘r treat, The tooth fairy)

Basically anything that we consider (in our childish upbringing) as safe is potentially dangerous in a horror movie.

4. Supernatural or not?

Samara was a girl with psychic powers. Jason, Freddy and Dr. William Weir (Event Horizon) weren't. At least, they weren't before they died/taken in by the ‘dark side’. So there is a distinction between the horror movie villains who were and who weren't supernatural before they died. Charles Lee Ray was in no way supernatural before he transferred his spirit to a doll (Child's play). Candyman wasn't supernatural before the mob tortured him (Candyman). And Jigsaw was a charming and brilliant fellow before his psychosis (Saw).

Then there is a little girl who might be a fairy (The Daisy chain). Samara who might be the child of a sea demon (Ringu) or kids born from an alien impregnation program (The village of the damned). The point is: for the back-story it is vital to keep in mind whether the villain was special or ordinary. I prefer special. Number four: The villain already had special abilities before the events of the movie.

Religion or non religion? Basically religion doesn't change the basic story. We still got a 'angry spirit’ or something.

But it adds nicely to the story regardless if it is an Islamic ghost (The shadow within), Jewish ghost (The possession, The unborn) or a Christian ghost (the Reaping).

(And The exorcist started the concept that, knowing a demon's name gives you power over it. But the basics remain.)

5. Group or alone?

Sometimes the villain works in a group (Burnt offerings, Smiley, Kristy, All the boys love Mandy Lane, Cry wolf), sometimes the villain is the puppet master (Thirteenth ghost, The puppet master, Dolls). And sometimes he works alone (Urban Legends, Fender bender).

Sometimes it's part of the ongoing saga (The omen) - like Jason and his mother. Sometimes it is all part of the infamous twist (Scream). So now I have to decide if the villain has or had a helper (The 7th guest – I’m cheating. When will Hollywood make a movie from this great game?). I'm going for no helper at all. Number five: The villain works alone.

6. Back-story or not?

Every villain, no matter how demented, needs a motive. He (or she) needs a tangible reason to kill. Revenge is always a good one (I know what you did last summer), selfishness too (The skeleton key, haunter, Mephisto’s waltz). The question, however, is how important the motive is. Is it part of the mystery the protagonist is trying to solve (Midnight Meat Train)?

Which can be part of the twist (The boy) like the reveal of an untrustworthy narrator (The ward, Identity).

Or is the motive just plain old evilness and the story focuses on other elements (The exorcism of Emily Rose)?

Every great horror villain has a relationship. Michael Myers with his sister. Jason with his mother. Erique with Christine (The phantom of the Opera). Alex Forrest with her one night stand (Fatal attraction). Norman Bates, again, with his mother (Psycho). Relationships are a great way to make the villains understandable.

So what do I want? Do I wish my movie to be about uncovering the story of the villain (Pin)? Or do I wish my movie to be about running away and fighting back (The purge)? Because that’s what it boils down to.

I like my villain to have a big back-story which is front and center in his actions. Number six: The villain has a back-story which is vital to the plot.

Samara was drowned. Freddy was burned. Nix was buried alive (Lord of illusions). Azazel travels through air (Fallen). Sebastian Caine (Hollow man) was turned invisible. And Audrey II used all her plantlike abilities to tear the flower shop apart (The little shop of horrors). The elements of the earth are highly important in horror fiction. And, as a result, these form the look of the character.

A lot of horror movies incorporate a basic element from the world into their villain. An element they can control (like sand in Sleepstalker) –or that works as a theme throughout the movie (water/rain in Seven). This is one of those cherries on top when creating a story: incorporate a basic worldly element.

7. Weapon or no weapon?

Freddy had a claw. Jason had an axe. Michael had a knife. But then, again,  the Tooth fairy only needed to drag her victims into the darkness (Darkness falls).

Sometimes the villain uses a variety of weapons. Sometimes, the villain uses his/her psychic powers (Shutter).

Depending on what you want your movie to be like: all out torture porn (Hostel, Daddy's little girl, A Serbian film) or focus more on the suspense (The others)? This is an important choice to make. Because, on a script level, if you write down that you villain has a chainsaw (The Texas chainsaw massacre) you can expect some blood.


I’ve already made the choice that ‘our villain’ has psychic powers. But do I like a bloody weapon to accompany it? Yes I do (and thus making the choice that I want some bloodshed). Number seven: The villain has a weapon.

The higher the body count you planned the more characters you have to introduce (Salem's lot) – the less screen-time you have for character development on either the protagonist or the villain.

8. Isolated or accessible?

Choosing a location not only tells a lot about the villain (The Wicker man, Crimson peak, Cub). It also influences the danger the villain poses.

Where something takes place influences the style of the story.

This is the difference between a slaughterhouse and a pony farm (or –prejudice wise- eastern Europe (Hostel) and jolly old England (Cockneys versus zombies, Pride and prejudice: and zombies).

So does the continent the villain lives: Africa (The ghost and the darkness), America (From dusk till dawn, The ruins), Asia (The wailing), Australia (Wolf Creek), Europe (Interview with the vampire).

the rule of thumb is: the more isolated the location the villain roams is, the more dangerous he/she can be allowed to be.

Dealing with horror stories there are, basically, three ways of starting the story: A special place the protagonist enters for one reason or another (Alien, the House on haunted hill, Ghost ship, Death ship, the Haunting, the Disappointments room, The other side of the door). A place the villain arrives (again) for one reason of another (Let the right one in, 30 days of night). Or an item that puts everything in motion (Hellraiser, The horror at 37,000 feet, Cronos, The box).

The thing to learn from this is that the responsibility primarily resides with the protagonist. He/she is the one who starts it or gets involved. This is a comforting thought for the audience.

This is important to remember because an all powerful villain (e.g. Samara on youtube) unrestrained would be sincerely busy slaughtering the entire world.

Isolated (The thing) = very dangerous (higher possible body count). Accessible (Hideaway) = less dangerous (lower possible body count). It’s a good scriptural way of keeping his bloodshed contained for our protagonists to happen upon the villain.

I prefer my villain to be powerful and therefore contained at the start of the story. So I’m going with an isolated starting point: Number eight: The villain lives somewhere remote.

9. Present or past?

Time as a setting. If I set a tale in ancient times (The village) I can include (apart from the bloodshed possibilities of pikes and swords), for instance, witchcraft far more easily (Sleepy Hollow) than in a current setting (The craft).

Then again, ancient times disallows certain filming techniques like (e.g.) the ‘found footage’-horror-films (The Blair Witch project, Afflicted, As above, so below, The tunnel, Rec, Paranormal activity). Because these movies rely on the concept of the ‘camcorder-as-the-protagonist’.

I wonder whether M. Night Shyamalan’s The visit was a cheap way for Bloomberg productions to find out whether or not they had a winner or a ‘washed up’ director on their hands. In retrospect, I wonder whether M. Night ever wanted to shoot this for movie in a ‘found footage’-manner or that he only did it because it was cheap – which, after the success in turn, allowed him to film Split.

For the villain, however, nothing really changes whether I set a tale in the 1800s or in the 2000s. Regardless of how ‘old’ the villain is (House of voices, The gate)? It doesn’t change the nature of the villain. It might only add the possibility for more back-story for our protagonist to uncover.

The difference between escaping-a-villain (Invasion of the Body Snatchers) and finding-out-the-history-of-the-villain-(and then escaping) (The dark).

So it’s a matter of time and back story!

The ‘present’ could be now or two hundred years ago (The witch). The villain could be from the past (The Changeling), the present (Jaws), or the future (The diabolical). The choice I have to make is when the tale is set and where the villain is from. The older the villain (even if he’s from the future) the more back story I can ‘load’ onto the character.

As I wrote before: I like a good back story!  Number nine: the tale is set in the present time and the villain is from the past.

10. Touchable or not?

The point of this distinction is whether or not the protagonist can physically fight back against the villain (Sometimes they come back)? The usual rule of thumb is: If the villain carries a weapon the hero can fight back (Bad Ronald)! If the villain doesn’t have a weapon the hero is often better off running (The Babadook)!

So the choice comes down to this: Is our villain touchable/ fight-back-able? My choice: yes! Number ten: The villain is touchable.

11. Discriminately or non-discriminately?

Then there is the choice of the victims. Usually in slashers the villains are heterosexual males who like to prey on young teenage girls (Madman, The town that dreaded sundown). Sometimes not (Sleepaway camp, Shocker). But motivations vary. Sometimes it's vengeance (Flatliners). Sometimes it is the villain trying to prevent the supporting characters to help the protagonist (Case 39). So the question becomes: does the villain kill indiscriminately (Anaconda) or discriminately (Jeepers Creepers)? My choice, to keep it fun: discriminately! Number eleven: The villain kills discriminately.

One of the greatest triumphs of horror fiction is that some writers managed to make slaughter, fun (The final girls, Tremors, Cooties, Housebound, Scouts guide to the zombie apocalypse)! Or even managed to create a romance between a monster and a pretty girl (Warm bodies).

This has to do with the style of shooting (e.g. if somebody gets hurt, how much time the camera focuses on the aftermath). But there are also, quite often, some hilarious elements incorporated in the script. For instance: Shaun’s ‘brilliant’ idea to hide out in the local pub (Shaun of the dead). This is an important thing to remember when coming up with a story.

12. Attaches or not?

Dreams, 'seven days', the visit to a certain lakeside park, the stay in a hotel (The Shining), A hotel room (1408), A Scottish cottage (Doodeind), a mine (Sl8n8) or an abandoned town (Silent Hill).

The point is that the protagonist has to have a (somewhat) fighting chance. Getting into a car and leaving the haunted house is often enough for the evil spirits to leave you alone (Poltergeist). But sometimes the danger attaches him/herself to the protagonist (Insidious).

So what is the fighting chance for the protagonist? Does the villain attach him/herself to the hero or is the protagonist stuck in a place? My choice is the first. I like my villain to want to hurt the protagonist no matter where he/she goes. Number twelve: The villain attaches itself to the protagonist.

13. Reasonable or unreasonable?

If a villain is straight from hell (Needful things) there is often no reasoning possible. However, if the villain is a spirit from a small town (The Awakening) there might be some hope left.

Basically the first one belongs to the ‘all out kill everyone (Silent night, deadly night)-kind’ and the second one to the more discriminating kind (The girl with all the gifts). The latter one might not even kill anybody…intentionally (The aggression scale).

The question is whether or not you want your villain to be able to be reasoned with (Ginger Snaps) or not (Oculus)? I prefer the latter. Number thirteen: The villain cannot be reasoned with.

My Horror villain (or fan fiction)

1. The villain is human.
2. The villain is male.
3. The villain is a child or childlike.
4. The villain already had special abilities before the events of the movie.
5. The villain works alone.
6. The villain has a back-story which is vital to the plot.
7. The villain has a weapon.
8. The villain lives somewhere remote.
9. The villain is from the past (the story is set in present time).
10. The villain is touchable.
11. The villain kills discriminately.
12. The villain attaches itself to the protagonist.
13. The villain cannot be reasoned with.

So, there you have it; my thirteen choices. Which brings me to my (fan) fiction, in which I’ll try to come up with a villain’s tale based on these choices.

To be absolutely clear: The fun part of this exercise was –for me- to write an article and make choices. I haven’t thought about the consequences.

Now I have to make sense of it all in some form of ‘creative writing’. Good luck to me!

Let’s see what I can come up with:

My villain

The villain is a twelve year old boy named David Wake (1,2,3). He was born in a village called Angstig Falls in 1923 (9). An isolated village in the mountains of Minnesota cut off from the rest of the world by a lake and mountains on one end and a sheer drop on the other (8). He was the only child. He had a gift. He could move things by thinking (4).

His father a drunkard and his mother a dedicated member of the local church; each tried their own way of correcting the boy. The father beat him and often locked the boy up in the basement underneath the stairs. The mother would then come by and comfort him. The boy loved his mother (6).

Then, in 1934 the mother got pregnant again (out of wedlock from a man in her parish). One night the father got drunk heavily and beat the mother. David responded by using his powers to throw the father through the window out of the house. The father left and lived in a cabin across the field - keeping a close eye on his family.

When the child was born David grew resentful of the baby and tried to take him away and set him afloat in the lake like Moses. When his mother prevented this David later used his powers to (covertly-he thought) kill the baby.

His mother hated David for that and called the aid of the local priest.

David tried to reconcile with his mother by bringing small animals to her. Which only caused his mother to become more desperate.

David was tending his father’s fields at the time as he was taken to the church by a mob organized by the priest. David had his field scythe with him as he was abducted. The priest quickly got rid of it as he started gospel-ing against the young boy. David almost killed the priest by flooding the town and the church. The priest escapes by fleeing to the roof.

Inside David stayed as the water ebbed away. He kept reciting the priest's favorite poem over and over again:

Look in the lake, don't scare away.

Say my name, please stay awake.

Say it two times, prepare for the wake.

And all is forgotten... *And David adds to this* burn at the stake!

He screamed this from the top of his lungs so all the town could hear him. There were spontaneous fire eruptions around town.

His mother came to comfort him by banging on the church door but David knew she didn't love him anymore. So he didn’t let her in.

The townspeople got furious as they gathered around the church and barricaded the doors. Then they burned the church down with gasoline.

David's father came into the church –as it was burning and David was praying- through the back door and saved his son. He took him to the lake and told the boy that everything was going to be alright. At 00:18 precisely the father, then, hits his son in the back of his head with a stone and drowned the boy.

But David didn’t die at first. He spent a full hour in the lake trying to swim, trying to breathe until, finally, fatigue overtook him.

David's father later confessed his sin to the priest who –later- gossiped it to the townsfolk. David's father then joined the army to escape prosecution and died on D-day 6th of June 1944.

In the years that followed (around 1950) many people who knew the legend of David Wake went to the lake on a dare and spoke his name. Reciting the following poem (A perversion of David’s/the priest’s poem)

Look in the lake, David Wake..

Say my name, David wake.

Say it three times, David wake.

And all is forgotten ‘till I burn at the stake!

The story goes that you can sometimes see David in the distance standing on the water.

Later, at night, when they were at sleep: the wall would come alive and a burning hole dripping water would appear. David would then come out of the hole brandishing his scythe and kill (5,7, 11). The town grew fearful.

But then something peculiar happened in 1956. A young woman claimed to have met a boy very much like David Wake. He would visit her at night and help her with the chores her abusive husband set for her. Then, by morning he’d be gone. Then one day her husband died. Shortly after she died (horribly) before her claims could be examined.

This happened again in 1958.

In 1959 the priest (with the help of the mother) decided to recite the blasphemous verse at the lake. That night the priest waited for David holding a small glass vial containing some of the lake water. When David appeared he cast a spell on the boy confiding him to the vial.

The mother died soon after in peace.

The priest then ordered the villagers to protect the vial because it should never be opened again.

Shortly after the villagers learned that the vial (by now in a special relic-like container held in the burned-down church) ‘spoke’ to them. Slowly the villagers went mad and turned into a feral community protecting the vial at all cost. They even used human-sacrifices to keep David at bay.

After fifty years the community it once was is now a feral childlike group of adults who have no concept of adult behavior.

The start of the story

All this is back story to the true villain of the tale: David Wake. Now I’m going to sum up the story as it will appear on the screen.

When -in 2017- a young cultural-anthropologist named Miranda Sloan happens upon this community she takes the vial with her to her home in New York. When examining a drop of water in a lab at the university she accidentally unleashes David.

That night David appears to her: a sweet and charming boy standing at her bedside. He thinks he has found a new mother (10, 12). Then, after an hour, he’s gone. But returns the next night. And the next.

At first Miranda is frightened of the ghost boy appearing in her bedroom. But as she musters up the courage to talk to the child she starts to care for him.

David tells her about his plight: He’s trapped in limbo because of his evil father who doesn’t allow him to move on. Nor does this father allow anybody to help David. He tries to coerce Miranda in keeping his sudden appearance secret and care for him (even trying to get Miranda to become a foster mother to her brother’s infant child – whose body David wants to acquire).

But as Miranda starts digging deeper into David’s past murders start to occur. David claims it is his father's doing. One night Miranda even spots the shadow of a large vile man (David actually) killing somebody with a scythe.

Miranda soon learns that David –and, as she believes, his father- only appear for one hour starting at 00:18. But every night, no matter where she is. The ‘father’ will kill whoever is in his way – yet she, the main target, stays unharmed.

As she explores the tragedy of David’s tale –over months- (afraid to sleep at night) she realizes the truth (David is the killer). She refills a vial of the lake-water and blesses it like the priest did years ago. Then she waits for David to appear and confronts him with his lies.

The boy grows resentful and angry. He turns into his true form

Blond hair just covering his eyes. There's a drip of blood on the left corner of his mouth.

He's dressed in a white trousers and a priest's shirt -raved around the edges.

In one hand he brandishes his small scythe -he once used to clean the fields of his father

and decides to attack her (13). Miranda only just manages to defeat him and confine him to the vial once more.

Then she returns to the village and decides to live there; protecting the world.

Naturally I took advantage of the infamous ‘twist’ or, for want of a better word: ‘telling the audience just enough to believe one thing over the other’.

I think this would be a nice twist. True we’ve had over fifty ‘killer kids’ (Bad Seed) over the years. But somehow audience members still prefer to believe the goodness in children over evil – so in this sense it might work.

Though I must admit that it would take a tremendously charming boy-actor and a Hide and seek-level of scriptural sleight of hand to pull it off.

Endgame

So there you have it. My little fiction on my little blog for your amusement. Of course I could have written something better, but I liked the imagery and the story of David being both sweet and manipulative and pure and utter evil.
Anyway, I hope I’ve given you enough footage for new horror movies to download (or Netflix). And if there are any scriptwriters reading this: remember the basic thirteen (and a bit) rules I just stipulated!

Some upcoming movies I worry about.

I'm not perfect! Sometimes I'm prejudice. Sometimes I am so blinded by my own opinion that I don't see another possibility. But, then again, sometimes I'm right.

In this little sum up I wish to tackle one or two movies that I worry about. Just, so that, when the movie finally gets released I can reread this and see if my doubts turned out right or unfounded.

The happyland murders.

This movie has been in development hell for over a decade (right next to the now cancelled the dark crystal-sequel). And to me it always struck me as the darker half of Who framed Roger Rabbit.

WFRR, after all, was promoted as a family-film to bring the kiddies to, which in turn traumatized kids by the hundreds

(we remember the character/scene right? I sure do).

So a film noir with muppets. According to the promotional test footage.

I love this picture because of the details. Here we have a dead bunny. He’s been brutally murdered, all his stuffing hangs out –and yet it looks comical. Then you look at the rest of the picture and you notice that this was a porn-entrepreneur dealing in muppet porn.

I like this because the picture looks like it is going to be played absolutely straight (like WFRR) except that some of the cast members happen to be muppets. So there’s probably a shady detective, a femme fatal and some dark shadows and gunfights.

I am highly intrigued in this possible balance between weird and an all out film-noir thriller.

And then the movie casts Melissa McCarthy!

I'm not pouring a lot of hate on her. I like her as a person. But 'till now the only movie I really liked her in was Spy.

So now I'm worried. You often hire an actor/actress because you want a certain type of acting, humor and audience pull. McCarthy's current resume is basically all comedy. I can’t readily think of a serious part she played. So I fear that, by hiring the actress, the happyland murders-movie decided to forego the weird/’straight’ aspect of the tale and focus on the comedy. This isn’t what I have in mind.

So I'm worried. I think McCarthy is miscast. But I do like her enough to prove me wrong.

Murder on the orient express.

That moustache. Oh dear. Two things bother me about this upcoming adaptation. Let me get the most obvious one out of the way first: the singular African-American among white folk.

It (used to happen) happens all the time in movies. A predominately white cast, one Afro-American to even things out.

I do have a problem with this choice when Afro-American characters are 'dropped in a movie' as equals in a time period where racism was still very much a thing. I’m prefer historical accuracy so it feels off.

We should never forget apartheid. So these choices always strike me a bit like a ‘rewriting of history’. Pretending racism never existed.

The second peeve is Brannagh's moustache. We all know that Kenneth Brannagh can be a tad arrogant at times -it's a personal flaw he's more than willing to agree with. But then, him (a rather tall man) playing the petite Belgian detective Poirot -already felt wrong on the page.

Now seeing the photograph it is obvious that Brannagh willfully took an entirely different visual visage than was shown on the screen before. Brannagh's moustache might be in line with the original books but it differs from Finney’s, Suchet’s and Ustinov’s depiction of the sleuth.

At least it's a bold move -turning back to the origins. But me, wanting more of the same, am a bit annoyed by it.

Especially after that great BBC adaptation of And then there were none.

Or last year's the visually (and acting-wise) great adaptation of Witness for the prosecution.
Too bad they seriously ravaged (this is as polite as I’m willing to get) the story.

So prove me wrong! Finney’s version was definitely too theatrical for its own good. But I'm certainn that Cruz is going to have a ball with her character like Bergman did before her.

The Dark Tower.

I once started book one on a beach somewhere and never got past the first twenty-five pages before the sea beckoned. Now that I've seen the trailer I have to wonder: how is this movie going to be better than any of the other marvel fantasy epics that we get on a yearly summer blockbuster basis?

My inkling is that Stephen King writing fantasy involves some serious horror coming by. I mean, read the Child Thief by Brom to see how well these two genres work together. Even the death-scene in Eyes of the dragon is brutal beyond belief.

I didn't see this in the trailer. Maybe it'll be so. But for now it looks nothing more than an average action flick of a kid and hero versus super villain (who happens to have some more back story - I know that much about the Dark tower series: I can wiki).

Death note

Alright, let’s end with something I’m more positive about: Death note. The big critique on the internet is that this upcoming adaptation is being ‘white-washed’ (all the main characters are Western instead of Asian).

Well, I guess after a successful manga, a anime-cartoon and three movies I don’t feel this unfairness as other people do. Maybe a wider release of the originals is called for. To readapt a story in another setting after several versions is nothing terrible (Asian cinema does it all the time as well).

What does bother me, though, is that the current promotional tidbits are proclaiming this upcoming show as a glorious ‘R-rated feast’. I don’t know how happy I am about that?

The anime-show I watched was bloody, sure, but never indulged in the bloodshed. Rather the cartoon was about the psychological and philosophical battle. So I fear a shift of focus from an internal battle to an external massacre. Maybe I’m wrong.

So there you have them. Just some short descriptions of upcoming projects and my doubts about them. The reason I wrote all of these down is because they peak my interest. Nonetheless, I remain critical until I sit myself down in the theater seat and allow myself to be blown away by it. Or not...