Showing posts with label Funny Games. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Funny Games. Show all posts

4/10/11

Monster Kid Memories

Scream Edition

Hello all. I truly meant to debut this section of the blog sometime ago, however, as with everything that gets put on the back burner, life's other responsibilities kept me away from said task. So unfortunately, Monster Kid Memories, before it even got its proper cardinal presentation, is making its first appearance in the form of a "special edition". But worry not dear readers, you'll live, fun will be had, my reflective brain power will get flexed and I'll most likely embarrass myself several times over along the way.

What is Monster Kid Memories you ask? Why, it's really nothing more than me reminiscing about moments from my childhood that relate to me being a great big horror nut (apparently from inception onwards). For the purposes of excusing certain behavior (that in hindsight is more than a little bit embarrassing), my "childhood" heretofore is going to encompass ages 1 - 18. Anything that I partook in or did after the age of 18, is fair game for you to ridicule or judge me on. I'll own it.

The germ of this idea, to compose articles about such personal instances from my past, was sown during my writing of the review for Lew Lehman's The Pit (1981, the review can be found here). I found it near impossible to share my feelings about the film's plot without relating some of my own situations from my childhood beforehand, seeing as how nearly every frame of that film inspired some bizarre trip down memory lane. Chiefly being that much like the pint-sized protagonist of that film, how I was a very strange little child (to put it mildly), obsessed with death, destruction, monsters, madmen and copious amounts of the red stuff. I was Jaime Benjamin (Sammy Snyders) and he was me (save for the fact that the only Trog-like abominations in my life, were those created in my overworked imagination). The point is, I had a lot of fun writing that review and revisiting my sordid childhood in such a manner. It made me want to do it again, it made me want to remember more (in truth, a rather rare occurrence in my life as I've spent the better part of the last decade attempting to forget the majority of my early years for other less savory reasons). Admittedly, this endeavor isn't something that I imagine will be the easiest thing to do, as my hypochondriac nature leads me to believe that I am currently suffering from either unknown brain trauma, meningitis, epilepsy, an early onset of Alzheimer's or some sort of Fringe-esque rapid aging, as my once sharp-as-a-tack memory is nearly nonexistent these days (ask me what I ate 4 hours ago and a swirl of gray fog obscures the memory in my mind, truly frustrating and more than a bit unnerving). However, I will do the best I can with what I can. No James Frey recollections here. Promise. Just the cold hard truth, even if at times it seems so over the top, so unlikely that that I wasn't under constant psychiatric care, so strange that it must be fiction, I assure you dear readers, it isn't.

I Want To Play A Game


Picture the setting. It is night. The darkness is utter and complete, the kind of darkness one finds themselves in when removed from the comforting environs of a well lit city and transplanted to its rural outskirts, where only the stars and a dim moon will light your way. My mother and step-father's relatively large, two-story country home (complete with enormous barn). Miles from any town, neighboring an empty, expansive golf course and with the closest houses no more than 200 yards away (many of them, buried deep within the woods that surrounded our house to the north). In short, very reminiscent of Casey Becker's (Drew Barrymore) abode from the very first Scream (minus the beautiful vineyard, this was after all, Indiana). And the evening I was sharing with my then-fiance Mike, was likewise very similar to the one Casey was about to have with her boyfriend, dearly departed and gutted Steven Orth (Kevin Patrick Walls); scary movies on the TV, enjoying a snugly evening in the middle of nowhere, capitalizing on the fact that my parents were out of town and I had the house to myself with my beau. Except, midway through the evening, watching fear flicks and spooning on the couch didn't sound as exciting anymore. Something more...adventurous was in order. Something more lively. At first, inspiration came to me in the form of playing a game of hide-and-go-seek (an activity that me and a select group of friends still got up to from time to time, but in slightly more creepy environments like the local haunted spot Devil's Hollow or the biggest cemetery in town but more on those games some other time). However, just playing hide and seek didn't seem nearly enough...there needed to be something more. Then, like a lightning bolt, it struck me, "let's play Scream!" Yes, I actually said that, and yes we actually did "play Scream". Here is how.

The object of the game was very simple; There would be the victim (Mike, and later changed to accommodate victims, as our friend Jasmine joined in on the fun) and the maniac (me, decked out Ghostface mask and a huge black coat reminiscent of Candyman's wardrobe). All the victim was required to do, was find away into the locked up house from outside (there was only ever one way inside, known only to me), find the hidden set of car keys, escape the house, enter my locked car and drive it off the property to "safety". There were catches that made accomplishing this, very difficult. Many of them. First off, in keeping with the hide-and-go-seek nature of the game, the victim could only be "tagged" three times and they would lose, and by "tagged" I mean "stabbed" with a fake plastic knife or hand scythe (my favorite, shades of Children of the Corn here) that I would wield, and by lose I mean "die". The game was played within the pitch black house and the equally dark, unlit property. No lights were allowed to be turned on by the victims (nor I) and they had to rely on their eyes adjusting either to the dark as they crept about trying to remain undetected, or they had to use what little light I provided them to navigate through the rooms (usually a single television set playing a horror movie). There senses were further fucked by the fact that I would have playing in the house, a horror film score so loud, that it was near impossible to communicate with another party or hear me sneaking up behind them. A horror film score so loud that I imagine in the quite countryside, it could be heard a mile away in the still of the night. A horror score so loud that you couldn't help but feel like you were smack dab in the middle of some nightmarish scenario straight out of a scary movie, or unwittingly having found yourself stumbling into one (my film score collection wasn't the gargantuan beast that it is today, so I usually employed Don Davis' House on Haunted Hill remake soundtrack, to hair-raising effect, the sheer volume that I played it at being enough to put anyone on edge, the track Epiphanic Evelyn being a standout example ). Additionally, like any victim in a good scary movie, they were allowed to fight back against my "attacks", utilizing anything within arms reach that would neither break, nor seriously harm someone (pillows, couch cushions and the like). They were not allowed to lock doors behind them in an effort to evade me. They could barricade the doors with their bodies or other objects, but that was all. In most cases the only option was find some dark corner to make themselves very small in, or tuck themselves away in the back of some dark as pitch closet and be very very still and very very quite. To make things even more intense, if one found themselves injured in the duration of the game (me or them), they were to pick themselves up and keep going, limping or crawling their way to temporary safety somewhere. The game would only stop if they or I seriously hurt ourselves (and considering how genuinely freaked out one could get in the middle of playing, it's a wonder one of us didn't break our neck as there were instances of falling down the stairs and tripping over objects in the yard only to go flying face first into the dirt). Lastly, acquiring hidden car keys in a lightless house is hard in the best of circumstances, finding them using only select, odd clues placed about to point you in the right direction is quite another thing entirely, deciphering the aforementioned clues while being stalked by a masked "killer" was difficult to the extreme. I would set up these clues while the other players would drive around the countryside, waiting to pass by the house and see that the outside porch light had been turned off (the indication that the game had begun and they were to park the car and make their way inside). Sometimes they won and escaped with their lives, other times they weren't so lucky and the game ended with their "lifeless, bloody corpses strewn about on the ground." Or something to that effect.

The Highlights Reel


One reason I was constantly the killer while playing Scream (with the exception of one game where I spent 3 hours nearly peeing my pants, hiding underneath beds and inside closets), was because plain and simply, I am a control freak. I wasn't entirely sure either Mike or Jasmine had the enthusiasm to set up intricate clues or maintain the momentum of coming on hard and strong for an "attack" but then know when to retreat a bit to maximize tension and prolong the chase thereby enhancing the overall terror. Possibly either one of them would have done just fine, but like I said, control freak.

Below you will find a roster of some of the games' highlights, in no particular order or context.

- Check The Backseat
There was one instance when we were playing Scream where I held off stalking Mike and Jasmine in the beginning while they were still trying to find a way inside the house. Instead, I waited inside the backseat of my parents' SUV that was parked in the dark garage. The reason being that I had left the door that adjoined the garage to the house the only one unlocked and their only way inside. To reach this door, one of them would have to shimmy on their stomach beneath the garage door that I had left open only a foot off of the ground. When they passed (it turned out to be Mike) I threw the SUV door open behind them and sprung my attack (missing him). But the chase had begun and this instance led to this...

- Open The Door!
Mike had fled into the house through the garage, leaving me standing there for a moment deciding what my next plan of action was. Hearing Jasmine's calls of "Mike? Mike?" from the other side of the enormous garage door, I quickly decided. Stealthily moving to a small gap between door and floor, I took a swipe at her unsuspecting form, I missed but managed to send her screaming to the front door where she proceeded to bang and holler and beg Mike to open the door "quickly, now, NOW". I think I stood there for a moment, dumfounded over the fact that I had just recreated within the game, and unintentionally at that, the famous scene from the climax of John Carpenter's Halloween. Specifically, the one where Jaime Lee Curtis' Laurie Strode finds herself locked out of her house with an ever encroaching Michael Myers. Yes really. However, due to the fact that I approached with his same slow and deliberate pace (I couldn't really run like Ghostface mind you, I smoked a pack of cigarettes a day), Mike caught to the front door in the nick of time and let Jasmine inside, just as I was upon her.

There are other crazy moments to be sure. Like the time I hid the car keys on the roof during a rainstorm (how we didn't simultaneously break our necks or destroy my parent's floors by tracking mud everywhere is a miracle, but the kind of miracle that one at that age only recognizes in hindsight). Or the time Jasmine and I (when I was playing as a victim for a change) was hiding in the darkness of my parent's walk in closet (which itself led into another walk in closet, with two entrances to boot, one almost a cleverly hidden mirror), clinging to one another and trying to not pee our pants until one of those closet doors were ripped open and standing there in the hazy shadows was Ghostface (Mike), knife raised and at the ready and I did just that, pee my pants. A little. I could go on certainly and if I concentrated hard enough I'm sure I could scare up more noteworthy memories from our games. But I think you get the general idea dear readers.

Conclusion

As I promised earlier, what I just shared with you probably makes many of you wonder how I wasn't under constant scrutiny from trained psychiatric professionals. Beats me. Maybe I should have been. However, I am more inclined to view those Scream games for what I believe they really were; just a couple of extremely bored, crazy kids utilizing their imaginations and taking a game of hide-and-go-seek to the next, scare-the-hell-out-of-themselves level. And we did scare the ever living hell out of ourselves. It was as if for a time, we created for ourselves for the cost of nothing more than a dime store Halloween mask, our very own Haunted House. Only there was no admission, it was open year round (or rather, whenever my parents were out of town) and it operated by our rules. The only rule that was really important though being the one where we gave each other the fright of our lives and I can't stress how much we did just that. Ever since those days, it's relatively easy to watch some slasher film and think to oneself "I kinda know what that feels like; the pursuit, the hiding, the screaming, the fear...I lived it." Sorta.

12/21/10

Film Review - Cherry Tree Lane

Your Worst Fears Have Come Home



Britain's Paul William Andrews is short becoming a name to be reckoned within the horror field. Director of 2008's darkly hilarious The Cottage and co-writer of last year's insanely tense, yuletide psycho kiddie flick The Children. Andrews returns yet again with another winner under his belt, the understated home invasion horror film Cherry Tree Lane.

7:52PM London, England.
18 Cherry Tree Lane. An idyllic brownstone on a quite street. Beginning another night of seemingly mundane, middle-aged routine, successful and professional married couple Michael (Tom Butcher) and Christine (Rachel Blake) are settling down for a quiet night of dinner at home, followed by some TV. Navigating through some tense marital strife, their simmering hostility is interrupted by a unexpected knock at the door. It's three male youths inquiring into the whereabouts of the couples teenage son, Sebastian. Informing them that he isn't in at the moment and that he should return home sometime around 9pm. Christine closes the door and returns to her meal and then resumes an even more heated conversation with her husband, regarding their son (spurned by the recent visitors) whereby we begin to gather that he hasn't been running with the most savory of mates.

It isn't long before there is another knock on the door. Seconds after answering it, we hear a scream and the moderately peaceful evening is shattered and a night of terror begins. The three youths have returned and as a helpless, bound and gagged Michael and Christine look on, they make themselves right at home. The intruders intending to wait for Sebastian's return to meet him with some violent payback. Apparently, Sebastian, having gotten himself involved in some shady criminal dealings, has been running his mouth and as a result, has gotten the cousin of the leader of the gang incarcerated as a result. Street justice is going to be paid back in full this night, but Michael and Christine are merely an inconvenience in the way. Can they survive long enough to warn their son or protect him and themselves at all, when the clock strikes 9? .

Taking a page from other recent home invasion films (Ills, The Strangers etc.) but quickly departing from their established tropes, Andrews here crafts something quite different with the use of his villains, who by and large, become the film's protagonists throughout. These are invaders of a different order. The small gang of criminals, Rian (Jumayn Hunter), Asad (Ashley Chin) and Teddy (Sonny Muslim) aren't your typical gaggle of masked killing machines or faceless stalkers attempting to gain entry into their victim's home. They're already in, front and center and as it turns out they're all too incredibly, miserably human. Cherry Tree Lane proceeds to examine, through the behavior of its chief tormentors, the banality of everyday evil. They're like bored, restless teenagers, anxious for dad to get home with the car or frustrated and impatient that there isn't something better on the telly.


Initially, save for the sudden violence that punctuates the situation (a few kicks here, a few punches there to get their captives to cooperate) the three villains are almost apologetically polite. The leader of the trio, Rian, struggles to keep things strictly "business". All things considered, he's relatively nice at first, making small talk with his victims, expressing a geniune human curiuosity about them. Soon, seduced by the power he holds, his darker, more violent nature begins to surface. You see the wheels beginning to turn in his head, realizing what he has at his mercy, when his eyes begin to lustfully gaze over Christine's body ("You look younger than me mum."). It becomes apparent to him that there are other ways he'd rather be spending his time while they wait upon the return of Sebastian. Teddy quickly makes short order of the snacks in the kitchen, busying himself with snooping about the rooms in the house. As Asad emerges as the most humane, more thoughtful of the gang. Within his means, he tries to make the situation more comfortable for all involved, preferring to get the evening over with, painlessly.. He seems put off by the business at hand and behaves as though it's just something that unfortunately, by his and his friend's moral code of ethics, has to be done. A moral code of ethics that a nice, middle-class family like the one they are holding hostage, couldn't begin to comprehend.

"Don't think about me like what he's doing to her in that room, yeah? I ain't like that.You gotta have sort of line. You get what I'm saying?"


Its here where Andrews draws the line in the sand. Clearly this is a form generational and class warfare. Once again, the "haves" paying for the suffering of the "have-nots". This point is subtlety alluded to time and time again. Rian, apparently being raised by a "crack-headed" mother versus Christine's life of middle-class stability she provides for her son. This character is very interested in knowing how Christine does things around the house ("Does [your husband] make you work?") and appears to be contrasting their family's existence with his own. Another quiet and observant example occurs with the trio's confusion over the wealth of foreign DVD titles in the home (a sign of the "typical" refinement of tastes and culture found in the bourgeois of society) and so on.

There is a really nice beat wherein Ashley Chin's Asad insecurities come to the surface over being found out and judged, by a complete stranger (a stranger that he is holding captive at that) the he can't read a button on the television remote. His character being illiterate, apparently (like much else, the movie doesn't specify). It's a lovely moment of both characterization and blink and you'll miss it acting that further humanizes someone who otherwise is behaving monstrously. Its subtle but there and yet typical of the nuance of character found throughout the film. You begin to get the feeling that if these kids came from different socio-economic backgrounds, that they might not be in this couples home at all. Its a possibility and has merit, but no one entirely without complications. If that were to be true, what are we to make of Sebastian's life of criminal involvement? Sebastian who comes from a seemingly nice home and has all the amenities provided to one who resides in the upper echelons of middle-class living. Is this simply a case of the sins of the parents being visited upon their children? Is it nothing more than a generation gap, respect and basic decency being thrown out the window in favor of typical teen rebellion? Or rather, it puts me in mind of the suburban middle-class families that thought they could ignore the truly pressing troubles and responsibilities of inner city urban living by "escaping" to the suburbs. "White flight". Only to be visited by society's skeletons years later when everything that they thought they had been rid of and could ignore started cropping up in their children's music, mannerisms, speech, culture etc.

The movie doesn't offer any answers. Hell the movie barely asks the questions but do we really need any 'authorial' comment when so many other films insist on spelling everything out for us? They are there for those audience members who care to look and read between the lines, those wanting to peel back the surface of the horror. It is with this, that Cherry Tree Lanes truly succeeds, and where (as mentioned earlier) it sets itself apart. The study of character, namely it's chief villains. Curiously, Michael and Christine are regulated to the sidelines after the initial first act. Spending the majority of the time silenced with duct tape over their mouths, unable to speak save to yell and scream unintelligible protests through their gags and because of this, it is with Teddy, Rian and Asad that we come to see the chain of events. We discover and explore the residence on Cherry Tree Lane as they do. We learn of Michael and Christine's home life as they ask the questions about it but never once do you feel as though Andrews (who was the film's screenwriter), is asking you to identify with or root for the villains, to the detriment of caring about Christine and Michael's well being. Cherry Tree Lane does not glorify it's monsters nor turn them into anti-heroes, it merely, refreshingly, presents them as is (in all their lightness and darkness).

Into all this, there is a third act twist that further complicates what we are witnessing and how we might feel about it. Specifically, the direction in which some youth in society are moving (according to the screenwriters of Cherry Tree Lane at any rate). The casual detachment of the characters in these moments may be the story's most effective and unnerving commentary. But the lesser said about the situation the better. Suffice to say, it makes the events all the more disturbing and uncomfortable to bear witness to. Tenfold.


So with this structure and story does Cherry Tree Lane offer up anything new and interesting? Yes and no. Certainly, we seen similar events play out in similar movies time and time again but I am of the belief that you can be the 8th sequel or 10th installment of a long running franchise, that exists only by copying and eating itself and still turn in something worthwhile and exciting if you truly try. Look no further than Wes Craven's New Nightmare as an example of how to breath new life into a formula that otherwise was becoming stale and old hat (yet, still entertaining by this fan's yardstick). Sometimes all you have to do is spin the structure a little bit and (if the stars are aligned right) you are left with something whose existence is justified (beyond the means to make a studio money, of course). The spin this time around being the villains and the journey we are asked to take with them. Does this twist on familiar events ultimately pay off and justify the scant 77 minutes that Cherry Tree Lane asks of your time? Yes. Every minute, actually.

"Your son has got to be the stupidest kid I ever met."


Moving on, a special note should be made of some of Andrews interesting choices in cinematography and editing. Much like Michael Haneke's Funny Games (both incarnations), Andrews has chosen to stage all the violence (save for that which occurs in Cherry Tree Lane's climax) off screen. Often times, the cruel and horrendous brutality being visited upon the victims (both psychological and physical) takes place so far away from the scene at hand, we are left with only the vaguest impression of what may or may not be occurring. Again, our heroes are silenced, no longer with duct tape but with the withdrawn preoccupation of the camera's chilly focus. With only their far off screams indicating the harrowing violations they are enduring, we are left to ponder their horrible predicament through the eyes of the left behind spouse or more often, a member of the gang not participating in the violence. When Haneke employed this approach with Funny Games, he seemed to be accusing the viewer of their own participatory sadism, by making them aware that they were being denied the very thing they both dreaded and wanted (mind you, PAID) to see. Taking this to the point of breaking down the fourth wall and having Michael Pitt ask the viewer what it is exactly, he or she would like to see happen to the ill-fated family that he and Brady Corbett are cruelly toying with. In the case of Cherry Tree Lane, Andrews instead seizes these opportunities to further explore the psychology of the criminals who have been left behind to stand guard over one of the spouses. Its a stylistic approach and strategy that works and pays off in unexpected ways, further cementing the notion that this movie isn't about blood and graphic violence but about the people who spill that blood and commit those acts of violence. Its a marvelous instance where a director is truly employing his camera by what it's NOT showing, as an aid in telling the story at hand.

Curiously, in the end (and this is not meant in any way as a disparaging remark) everything that we have went through with this family ends up feeling like something that has been read to us from a police blotter. Just the bare minimum of information has been provided, matter of factually. While other details are extremely precise (Teddy when he is eating a biscuit, the wiping of Michael's lips so that the tape of his gag can adhere properly). Perhaps the information an interrogator might gleam from the questioning of a suspect they have in custody. The wheres, the whys, the hows with a sprinkling of personal history that would inevitably crop up in the conversation as the criminal attempts to justify "where they were coming from" or rather, their hinted at motivation (lest he incriminate himself too harshly). Just like the crime scene photos that are the property of the police and oftentimes kept from the public, the violence that occurs is something that we can only imagine in our worst anxiety ridden nights as we lay awake in bed and wonder if we really did lock all the doors. However, in the end all of this just reinforces how understated Cherry Tree Lane plays things. It's so understated in fact, that the movie runs the risk of making itself less than memorable, collapsing in on itself when the end credits roll like a disappearing act. Though using its own unique voice to tell this often told tale and effectively achieving every thing it sets out to do, (no matter how small those achievements are), it triumphs. The entire cast is uniformly strong, turning in fine, effective performances of terror stricken hysteria, quiet regret and creeping menace. The script is assured and smart. The direction skilled and stylish. Definitely a film to be enjoyed for it's simplicity, there's really not one thing to be said against Cherry Tree Lane. I can't help but wholeheartedly recommend it to those looking for a tension filled night of subdued, masterful horror. Oh, and how about that final shot 'eh?



Skull Ratings:
5 Skulls - The Best
4 Skulls - Very Good
3 Skulls - Good / Average
2 Skulls - Poor
1 Skull - The Worst
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...