Panic Picture

Santa Sangre

2011-05-22T06:29:38Z

Just saw Santa Sangre tonight. Not sure what to think...more to come.

Copyright 2010 Mattia Ripley, All rights reserved

I'm Baaaack!

2011-05-09T05:46:00Z

After a long time away from this blog, I am back and will be putting up more content. Thanks to all who have read these posts.

Talk to you soon,
Panic Picture

Copyright 2010 Mattia Ripley, All rights reserved

Dawn of the Dead and Religion

2010-08-02T04:45:00Z

"When there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth."

It's interesting to contemplate where some films, especially ones in the horror genre, stand on religion and a belief in God. All it takes is one line of dialogue, referencing a theistic element, to stir up the quandary. I'm not really sure what that one phrase from Dawn of the Dead implicates the film into saying about faith-based beliefs. It's important to note that even though a film isn't necessarily about religion, it can still yield a pious reading. I'm going to have to re-watch this film and think about this more deeply before offering an opinion.

Okay, here I am a couple days later. I thought about the clip and the movie as a whole, and want to simplify the analysis. I think it would be more useful, right now, to discuss the clip by itself, as if it were the entire movie.

When one says, "when there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth," what exactly does this mean?

First off, it must be noted, that Peter was relaying what his grandfather had told him. However, by the way he says it, the confidence and enthusiasm in his tone, suggests he believes that this line of thinking is an adequate explanation for the raging zombies.

So, let's assume Peter more or less agrees with his granddad, and believes that there is in fact no more room in hell. Peter quotes voodoo as the source faith, religion, superstition, whatever you want to call it, that provided the means for his grandfather to believe in this logic. This implies Peter thinks voodoo has some truth in the world, and can explain something.

Voodoo is essentially the same as other absurd superstitions in the world, such as Christianity, Islam, the tooth fairy, etc., in that all rely on beliefs that lack evidence and defy commonsense experiences in the natural world.

When Peter recites his line, it seems to be met by skepticism from Stephen. Now either Stephen is a rationalist, freethinker, secularist, etc., or he has a different religious belief, which he perceives to be greatly different than voodoo. Either way, he doubts the concept of there being no more room in hell as a viable explanation for their present situation. It doesn't chime in with his logic or his faith-based beliefs. Also, the difference in race between these two characters might hint at their theistic incompatibility.

Nonetheless, Peter is not challenged. No alternative explanation is offered. This seems eerily similar to the real world tendency of people, when science has not advanced far enough or had the major break through to explain a natural phenomena, to turn to religion or the concept of a designer, or cosmic entity, to explain something.

Anyways, lets dissect his famous line from this scene. First off, he is implying that there is a hell. Even though this is apparently a voodoo saying, I am going to tackle this from a Christian perspective, since the majority of viewers of this film are and were undoubtedly Christian. Saying that there is a hell also means that there is a heaven. The existence of a heaven and hell implies the presence of a higher power, a god.

Also by advancing this line of thinking, the line implies that god sends people to hell, and evidently a vast number to this place of eternal damnation. Not only does god send loads and loads of his children to this furnace, but it is possible for hell to be over crowded. I guess this makes sense if you assume it wasn't god who designed hell, because surely if he did the place would never become cramped. However, god is all powerful and will happily send people to hell, so why would he allow the oven to be finite in space? If hell has a maximum capacity, why doesn't heaven as well? It would be reasonable to assume that heaven as an occupancy limit too.

Okay, so from this line we get that god is sinister enough to allow the existence of a hell, and is fine with what seems like the majority of his creation going to this place. Wait, this isn't all. Not only does god punish those who didn't please him while they were alive, he is wicked enough to let those who he judged to be deserving of eternal torture to come back to the Earth and terrorize the very people that still have a chance to make it to heaven. What is god saying? It is reasonable to assume that heaven is also full, that everyone on Earth, alive or acting as zombies, is meaningless to the everlasting love of god. What an asshole this god is.

It is amazing how one line of dialogue can wreck havoc on faith-based beliefs. I think this one scene can offer a compelling atheistic viewing on the whole film.

Copyright 2010 Mattia Ripley, All rights reserved

Get Well Christopher Hitchens

2010-08-01T17:07:00Z

I recently heard of the cancer diagnosis of one of my favorite rationalists, Christopher Hitchens. Check out the above video, an interview regarding the death of Jerry Falwell a few years back. Hitchens demolishes the putridity of Fox News.

Copyright 2010 Mattia Ripley, All rights reserved

Supernatural and Satanic Horror

2010-05-19T21:47:00Z

Sticking on the topic of religion and horror films, I wonder if non-believers can experience certain horror sub-genres (satanic horror or supernatural horror, vampire or werewolf narratives, for example) in the same way as people of faith.

What would a film such as The Exorcist mean to someone that doesn't believe in God? Sure, the imagery is graphic and the devil is by nature amoral, but with a non-belief in a higher power, in this case the Christian God, the horror in the movie seems absent. It amounts to a parody of sorts against the religious fanatics.

What about The Evil Dead? A lack of spirituality in the viewer, or a complete skepticism for the paranormal or superstition, renders the film a comedic splatter fest. I personally laughed through my first time viewing of The Evil Dead. I believe my disbelief in the supernatural made this possible.

A contradiction to my cinematic testimony is The Blair Witch Project. I don't believe in witches or curses, but I felt really uneasy during this movie, marking the first time a movie made me shiver (or the hairs on the back of my neck stand up). I was nervous for the student filmmakers, terrified as they fell deep into the abyss of the woods. Maybe this belief I talk about is actually irrelevant in horror cinematic discourse.

Perhaps rationality cannot conquer effective horror films that deal with supernatural or satanic themes. This is an important trait in these films, because even though the audience's common sense would preach not to be afraid, the brain is no match for certain cinematic techniques.

There is an interesting distinction between these types of horror films and the slasher or serial killer movies. The latter sub-genres, especially the serial killer pictures, are vastly more plausible to non-believers than a films such as The Exorcist. However, overall, I think the success of supernatural or satanic films, in the past and in contemporary times, tells film scholars something interesting about our culture's lingering interests in "other-worldly" experiences, rather than in scientific reason, championed in current times by Richard Dawkins.

Religion and horror films are clearly intertwined, making it fascinating to ponder how supernatural films of the past would be viewed in a predominantly atheist culture.

Copyright 2010 Mattia Ripley, All rights reserved

Jesus Camp

2010-05-18T20:11:00Z

A question I ask myself, frequently, as I embark on a course of studying horror films, and as a longtime fan of the genre's aesthetic and cultural value, is can I believe in God (practice Christianity) with macabre tastes and academic interests?

The clip from the documentary Jesus Camp is pretty ridiculous, especially its connection of Harry Potter enthusiasm to satanism, but it does raise a legitimate question regarding how one's faith can be in strict contradiction to the form of art work s/he enjoys.

Horror films display the most amoral aspects of human activity and consciousness. Would the Christian God view these pictures as works of art? I highly doubt it. Would he understand that certain filmmakers making a living off of the production of sadistic images? I think not. Would this oppressive Christian God look down upon the percentage of the population that flocks to see such films for entertainment purposes? It seems likely from what I know of God.

One could argue that watching, making, studying, marketing, etc. these films isn't hurting anyone, then it is okay with God. However, we can rely on the fundamentalists to claim that such images in movies, or lyrics in Marilyn Manson songs, directly influence people, mainly the youth, to commit heinous crimes, or at the very least defy parental authority. According to the religion that most people in this country practice, graphic films are viewed, whether publicly admitted or not, as sins.

So, are horror film scholars or aficionados going to hell? It is for these reasons that I feel my mindset involving my decision to study violent films is the same as the biology graduate student who dives head first into the philosophical benefits of Darwinism, giving up any lingering religious beliefs s/he held since childhood. It seems one has to give up a belief in God in order to complete grad school without going insane.

I have heard that the more education a person obtains, the less likely they are to believe in a deity. That could be true, but in the case of certain graduate school paths (biology, astronomy, film, among others), it appears to be a foregone conclusion. Not only the educational process, but the knowledge itself, just doesn't jell with Christian beliefs.Perhaps it is time to find a new religion other than Christianity. Maybe it is time to become a full blown, card-carrying atheist. I am tired of being confused, teetering on the pious edge. Maybe that is one thing I can pray for or make Richard Dawkins my [new] god.

Copyright 2010 Mattia Ripley, All rights reserved

Eli Roth on Genre Fans

2010-05-18T05:54:00Z

As a newcomer to the community of horror film buffs, hearing Roth's harsh words for lovers of the horror flick was a little surprising. I feel it is a tendency in the cinema universe for the original film in a franchise to be regarded as the most unique, visionary, special and oftentimes superior to the sequels or prequels. That seems to go across all genres of film. Yes, of course, there are exceptions, with the few coming to my mind at the moment being Star Wars episodes V and VI which are frequently viewed, at least among film watchers that I know, to be at least equal to the original 1977 blockbuster film, Terminator 2, which is widely viewed as a sci-fi legend and Aliens, which provided a breathtaking move toward the the action genre after the 1979 horror classic Alien.

While different genres have hits and misses with sequels and prequels, it seems horror film franchises have the hardest of luck, at least in terms of their reception from the genre's followers. I think that is what Roth is getting at in the clip. Perhaps horror film audiences expect to have the same visceral effect from subsequent pictures, and they are disappointed when the story appears stagnant in a sequel. There is definitely something lost after the first viewing of a quality horror film. It might be less of an adrenaline rush, less jumpiness as a result of the conventions of the genre, that makes repeat viewings of these films not as satisfying for a sizable portion of the audience. Perhaps horror fans are, compared to audience's of other genres, in the most need of something new from their favorite franchises.

Roth argues that even with the desire for "new horror," fans still come out in droves to see sequels and prequels, further fueling the fire of the seemingly endless cycle, and eventual remakes (or re-imaginings). That definitely seems to be the case with the continuance of the Saw franchise and the new remake of A Nightmare on Elmstreet (2010). A notable exception to the disappointing horror film sequel was 1994's Wes Craven's New Nightmare, which marked a return to the series for Craven.

What really awes me about this short interview clip is that Roth claims that fans of the genre and its powerful sub-genres don't welcome newcomers to the scene. Perhaps its a nostalgic look back at some of the "masters" of horror such as Carpenter, Craven, Cronenberg, etc., that makes a taste of contemporary horror filmmakers depressing for already jaded audiences. The advent of the moniker "torture porn" might have given fans a term to help describe their itching for the height of the slasher films to return. Roth seems a little bitter during the clip and it would be interesting to find out under what context he said it. One thing is for sure, I think Roth was completely misguided when he said that fans of the genre might be jealous of these new movies, or perhaps of the filmmakers as Roth seems to be implying, simply because the majority of audiences, regardless of the genre, are not aspiring filmmakers. It's absurd to suggest that notion.

Copyright 2010 Mattia Ripley, All rights reserved

Marilyn Manson is a Smart Dude

2010-05-18T05:51:00Z

I always find it interesting when people talk about the "culture of fear" in America, especially when I try to connect the ideas with questions about the popularity of horror films. As Eli Roth noted in the video from the previous post, people want a safe place (the movie theater or their own home) to have the ability to scream, and perhaps crucial to the release: with other people that share similar anxieties about the world.

Questions I have regarding issues raised in Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, are when did this culture of fear in the media begin? Is this assault as old as mass media itself? Have Americans always lived in a culture of fear? Perhaps as media technologies evolve and reach wider audiences, the media's projection of fear about many facets of life becomes more pervasive, and with the images and messages of fright comes the loss of any remembrance of when it all began.

Allow me to give a brief recap of the history of fear in human society

Fear always existed in the world.
New fears arose as civilization advanced through the decades.
Mass media helped relay information to large audiences.
Media was able to relay warning messages to people in times of crisis.
Media technology advanced, making flow of fear more effective.
Horror films furthered making expressions of fear an art form.
Mass media technologies explode and nearly every potential harm is recognized.
Horror films remain popular.

Fear is in our DNA. We hate it but we love it. It creates stress but makes us feel alive. People are naturally fearful of the world. Horror films, or paintings, or novels, allow beauty to be viewed through fear.

P.S. I will never forget seeing this interview for the first time. I never knew Manson was so articulate and well-informed.

Copyright 2010 Mattia Ripley, All rights reserved

Why Americans Watch Horror Films

2010-05-18T02:42:00Z

Here's an interesting interview that sparks the debate in my head of what exactly makes horror films necessary and cherished in our society

A common argumentative question against horror films asks that during times of great suffering and turmoil in our nation, why do people enjoy the genre?

Before going any further it must be realized that this time in American history, and in fact world history, is not witness greater atrocities by mankind than any other age. Ever since man climbed out of the primordial soup, climbed down for that fig tree in Africa, cruelty and sadism were in our DNA. Murder, torture, any physical crime against another human being (which is a fundamental theme to the horror genre) has been in existence since the beginning.

With that being said, our current society needs these visceral feelings from horror films in order to cope with the popularity of what my mother likes to call "upppers," which she describes as films that make her feel good about the world. Take for example the film Marley & Me, a movie about two good looking journalists (Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston) who succeed at the American dream of having a large house, a full and happy family, a wonderful dog and job opportunities that would make any real journalist wet themselves. The film is full of "feel-good" moments, right out of the pages of Disney's playbook. A certain size of the American movie-going population may enjoy this film, and there's nothing wrong with that, however, there must be a genre that balances the cultural scales. This is where we get the continuing popularity of the horror genre.

Now the realism could be debated in films such as Marley & Me, or other romantic comedies, Disney tales or family pictures, but it is safe to say that this idealized notion of the American dream is not real to a lot of people anymore. I would contend that the chances of me stumbling into the hands an international torture club as featured in Hostel and Hostel Part II is about as likely as marrying another journalist with Jennifer Aniston's looks, being able to write a weekly column about my pet dog, threaten to quit and being offered double my salary to stay and continue to right about said canine. As a recent graduate of a journalism program, a film like Marley & Me is insulting in the same way Slovakia was offended by the Hostel movies. The contemporary horror film genre helps offset other films at the opposite end of the spectrum.

People in our America culture need have the ability to see films which present dark and pessimistic views of the world. The genre and its noteworthy sub-genres seem provide an escape from the failure, or the complete myth, of the American dream. As Wes Craven aptly put it: rage.

Copyright 2010 Mattia Ripley, All rights reserved