Crash

I Guess I Only Claim to be Nice

2008-05-01T22:16:00.003-06:00

Indulging in basic sensory pleasures has the complete opposite effect on me once the feelings are gone. Like my body is seeking balance. In my life there is no balance though. We just end up on a topsy-turvy perpetually wobbling carousel. It's like the Tilt-A-Whirl. Maybe that's why I always liked that ride so much. It felt like home.

I just watched "Southland Tales" and Richard Kelly totally fucked with my head once again. Except this time, I didn't understand a word of it. I think he seriously lost his mind this time. It was kind of frightening how he got so many celebrities to come along with him on it, too.

I think by now I've turned into one of those wind-flag-balloon-people that stand in front of gas stations and car dealerships, waving bonelessly in fake wind. You see me here, in some sort of motion. Perpetually standing and giving my all to celebrate the puny life I have. But the air that moves me is manufactured and auto-piloted. You don't get to see me when I'm actually happy, because you don't see me anymore except in passing. And even then, you're only watching me undulate in the breeze through a little window, little box.

Someday I'll be a real girl, someday.

The Lone Librarian

2008-04-23T18:42:00.003-06:00

If the title "Lone Librarian" wasn't already taken, I think it would be a good alias for me. I often feel removed from others, in a category all my own. I spend a lot of time by myself. I seem to fit in with few people, and they usually end up living far away from me. Lone... it describes me very well.

I have my moments where I get really lonely and depressed that people don't take more of an interest in me. That I don't seem to fit in with their group of friends. But mostly I just find ways to entertain myself because that's what I'm used to. I've never been able to figure out why kids my age didn't seem to like me very much when I was younger, but they sort of pushed me to the outside and I've been there ever since. I guess as you get older, you just don't want to waste time caring so much.

My outsider feeling carries over into my career, as well. While the librarian community is certainly alive and kicking, I often can't put up with these communities (and some of these people) for very long. Not to give the wrong impression, I enjoy what I do and put in a lot of time, hard work and money in order to be able to do it. It was the career that was standing right under my nose while I was looking around at other options. "You mean people will pay me to do things I do naturally? Sweet!"

But I have an issue with other librarians. I have ones that I like of course, friends from past jobs and such. But there are many more that I have trouble standing. The ones who can't talk about anything but libraries. The ones who hate their jobs and are taking it out on the rest of us. The librarians who will jump on any new trend just because they can. Or the ones who will jump down your throat if you say something they don't like. And the ones who keep hoping against hope that their flux capacitor will finally work just this once so they can fly back to the libraries of the past and pretend they've never heard of computers or DVDs or Guitar Hero.

They all fight, they all make ridiculous arguments and they all drive me crazy. Yet I keep reading their web-vomit because I believe in professional development. That means reading news, reading blogs, keeping up to date and in the know. I just wish I didn't have to do so through these people.

I mean really. With all the naysayers out there predicting doom for libraries and hollering on about how irrelevant we are and that nobody uses us... with the perverts and the molesters and the crazies and the insults... do we really need to be such bitches to eachother? Yes, I said bitches. Like it or not, you're being bitches. So sayeth me who observeth from both in and out.

I wish it was just constructive debate. The hard truth is, much of it is all a bunch of bitchcraft. The trendy people hate the stubborn relics because they aren't keeping libraries fresh and changing for the 21st century and are creating a risk that libraries will cease to exist. The relics.... well they'd rather see libraries stop existing than watch them turn into the equivalent of a bookstore.

You're all a bunch of deeps, and it puts me off the entire profession just to hear it. I don't even want to call myself a librarian, what with the new and improved reputation you're building for us. Way to go!

We have some hard tasks ahead of us, and nobody is going to be ready to face them because everyone is bickering about how to do it. It's not going to be easy, but it is possible. I remember loving the library when I was a kid. I loved reading, I loved picking out new books for the week and did summer reading every year. Sure I was a dork, but it didn't just come from inside of me. It came from my parents, it came from a good library and it came from the world around me.

If you want to make libraries more relevant, if you want people to want books and literacy and education, you're going to have to *change the world*. There are people working at that everyday... are you so much better than them that you can't give it your best shot too? Because you have a Master's degree, the world should change itself to fit your expectations? Or are you not satisfied with what a library is, you feel you need to make it something else to fit into the world?

Well, even if I'm alone in this: I think the world is in serious need of a makeover and in my vision, it's wearing its reading glasses. All about the learnin', over here.

*Sigh* I swear, someday I'm going to become the Hermit Librarian. I'll answer reference questions through a tin can phone in a cabin out in the mountains. I'm liking this plan already...

The Unity in Community

2008-02-15T13:44:00.002-06:00

Unlike those who have jumped on the latest social networking sites only in the last few years, I've been communicating socially with others on the internet for about 10 years. There are many out there who have been doing it even longer than that, hearkening back to the days of listserv's and very low-tech message boards. As a young teen I played around with AOL's chat rooms, but it was a couple years later that I started getting on email discussion lists.

My first and primary list was RBFMOJO, a list to discuss the band Reel Big Fish among many other things. I made a lot of friends on that list, I even talk to a couple of them to this day. But there was also a mean streak that ran through our little community. Blame it on teenage hormones, on clashing personalities or on the anonymity of the internet. But we had fights, and some of them got pretty ugly. I was one of the group that posted most often, a sort of clique within the community. I was also one of that clique who was a troublemaker.

When I say I was a troublemaker, I don't mean that I started arguments. Quite often I was reacting to something stupid somebody else said and trying to cut them down to size for being a moron, or defending one of my friends or an innocent bystander. I was trying to be the voice of reason at times. It was the first time in my life that I really felt armed to effectively defend myself against the words of others, and I ran with it. They couldn't see me get upset or cry, I had time to choose my words carefully and best of all I had people, friends who would back me up. Not so in real life, unfortunately; which is why I loved that group during that time.

But over the years as I've been involved in various communities-- other discussion lists, Yahoo groups, online journals, journal communities, message boards, social networking sites, etc.-- I've been able to take a broader view and understand what many of us truly need out of these communities, and what is often sorely lacking.

There's so little support and respect in a lot of them. Internal bickering among members, fighting over stupid details. People trying to force their opinions on others, people who just type to hear themselves talk and feel important without regard for the feelings of others. Members get defensive, get angry, and then everyone else watching the fight happening are made uncomfortable and decide to leave the group. Cliques form, but they are mostly to fend off other members and give the illusion of security to those within the clique.

Not every community is like this. For example, I'm in a community bonded by a common illness that's been absolutely amazing. It's not perfect obviously, but most members try to at least be respectful, even if they disagree at times. I think it's because we all know how horrible the disease we have can be and feel sympathy for one another, but I've seen other communities for this illness that are not as positive. I'm inclined to believe it's the way this particular community was set up in the first place, in addition to the specific people involved that makes it such a welcoming, enjoyable place to be.

Some of the other communities I'm not proud to be a part of have constant bickering. One in particular is related to my career, and is a place where we can all go to vent or rant about the aspects of our job that frustrate us, or people we have to work with that do crazy things. It's about letting the stress out, sharing our shock, anger and amusement (whatever the case may be) and can be very helpful and therapeutic. That is, until the PC-police show up. I don't know why certain members find it necessary to do this, but they are always watching for any little discriminatory remark, or un-PC opinion. And as soon as they find it, they pounce like a predator.

It's sickening and sad to watch them attack their fellow members and fellow professionals in this field just because they decided to describe an individual's ethnicity. Or because they expressed an opinion that by any stretch of the imagination, could possibly restrict a group of people from doing something they want. Endless debates about whether the descriptive details were necessary to the story, endless arguments over who gets to do what in a public place. Insults, accusations, assumptions, you name it.

Where is the solidarity? By the very nature of this community, our field deals with a lot of crazy members of the general public who find it their life's goal to drive us insane or else otherwise into the ground by demeaning us. So we're going to do it to eachother, too? Way to make a stand with your sisters and brothers.

That isn't to say that I'm immune. I jump in too when I've had a bad day and just need somebody faceless to ream into. But usually I'm still on the side of reason, asking why we have to attack eachother. I just do it with clever insults and witty sarcasm that enrages my targets even more. I hope some day that they'll learn not to take everything so seriously or personally, the way I did all those years ago. But chances are I just spur them on. Luckily I know when to stop-- usually when I just plain lose interest. It doesn't take long, because like I said... I don't take the individual comments that seriously.

What I do take seriously is the larger problem. People would rather be in conflict than in union. They'd rather be at war than be forced to deal with themselves in a time of peace. Fighting is a great distraction from the world inside, the ugliness that can and does exist inside each of us. But ignoring that will only make the world uglier and darker, and lead to the destruction of life as we know it. I know that sounds a bit overdramatic, I'm not suggesting that one argument in a Facebook group is going to end the world. But the patterns we're perpetuating by allowing it to not just happen once, but over and over again all over the internet (and the real world as well) most likely will be the end of us. Maybe not soon, but eventually.

And where I started this I will also end it, since Reel Big Fish once covered a song called "Unity" by Operation Ivy that spoke right to the heart of what I'm saying:

Civilization- Ha, I call it as I see it
I call it bullshit you know, I still cannot believe it
Our evolution now has gone the way of hate
A world evolved, resolved into this stupid fate.

All so different, yeah, I say we're all the same
All caught you know in the division game.
Self destruction fast, impending like a bullet
No one can stop it once its fired no one can control it.

A final word, wait it's not a call to action
We ain't no sect, no this ain't no fucking faction
Unity, unity, unity you've heard it all before.
This time it's not exclusive: We want to stop a war.

Love & Marriage

2008-02-08T16:18:00.000-06:00

In the morning on my way to work, I usually listen to a particular radio station. I do have a CD player, but it will not work when the car is below a certain temperature. Even when it is warm enough to work, sometimes I just feel like mindlessly listening to chatter. I've grown to like the morning show on this particular station because the deejays are so ridiculously funny and upbeat. There's also a certain level of trash factor, like a talk show, and I have an affinity for some trash.

Like a lot of morning shows, they have topics every morning that people call in and discuss. Recently the topic of marriage has come up in at least a couple of their more specific topics-- today's was "Surprise! I'm calling off the wedding!" I've been hearing a lot of people express their aversion to marriage, and it really kind of puts me off. I guess I'm a little surprised at how many people out there want nothing to do with it.

Now I'm not the type of person who wants to force everyone to agree with me. Don't listen to my boyfriend if he tells you I am, and he probably would. What I have is a competitive streak which when informally challenged to debate comes screaming out into the open. I don't like being told that I'm wrong for my opinions, and sometimes the way others express themselves can sound very challenging.

No, if someone just isn't interested in marriage that's fine. What do I care? As long as they're not somebody I was hoping to marry, it's ultimately their business.

But me, I want to get married. I want the proposal, the wedding, the reception, the honeymoon. And I want a marriage that lasts long after those things are over and done with. I don't want it for religious reasons. I don't really care about a gigantic expensive wedding. I'm a very practical woman, and I definitely don't have illusions about some big diamond engagement ring. For me it's about family and friends, getting to celebrate a major event in life with everyone you care about around you. I know that our society has created other ways of accomplishing this without actually achieving the dreaded m-word. But this is a tradition that goes way way back, and I don't see it hurting anybody. I actually like it.

Part of this is I'm sure because of the marriage I witnessed between my parents. They've been married for over 30 years, and they're happy. It doesn't mean everything has been absolutely perfect, I have a couple specific memories that were not my favorite. And they fight, like anyone. Nevermind what fights they might have had when I wasn't around. But they're fine and they love eachother. And I've marveled at how my dad has put up with my mom, at times. I couldn't do it, our personalities clash in the wrong places. But they did, and that makes me optimistic about being able to do it myself-- with the right person.

I guess I just feel bad for people out there who might be missing out on something that a part of them wants, but that they're denying themselves because of fears and issues that they have. I'm sure that there are people out there who are perfectly happy being alone, or happy being with somebody without ever getting married. I just worry for the ones who could be happiest with marriage, if they could only get past their self-restrictions.

Of Being Unheard

2008-01-30T20:24:00.000-06:00

Youth has become a commodity that is at the same time both highly desired and drastically devalued. On one hand, pop culture and the media fawns over young beautiful celebrities. They're attractive, they're sexy, they're better than the average person. But we also make out the young to be unenlightened, uninformed and foolish. They lie and make up stories for attention, and are painted as ignorant simply because of a lack of "life experience."

Young people lack credibility in the eyes of older adults-- young women even moreso. Men are still thought of as more worldly, even as teenagers. Femininity and youth both share a perceived lack of credibility and objectivity, the former mostly due to their biology and the latter because of inexperience.

Society warns us not to make up stories, not to overreact and cause panic among our communities. Cry wolf, and you will pay dearly for it later. But the cynicism that story encourages creates people who will assume a lie quickly and unapologetically. Combine an unlikely story with a young face or a female build and you'll have "liar" written all over you. You're exaggerating, you're lying, you're imagining things.

In horror no one believes you until it's too late. Demons, homicidal maniacs, ghosts, vampires, zombies; impossible, they couldn't be true. The NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET series is a perfect example of teenagers facing both evil and the terror of not being truly heard and believed. In every installment it's the children of Elm Street who are targets of Freddy's cruelty. Everytime they try to tell others what's happening to them, no one believes them-- particularly adults. The irony is that adults unintentionally created the monster, yet they don't believe it when he comes back for their children. And of course their unwillingness to believe that such a thing could exist eventually kills them and others.

Even adult women are not necessarily immune to this disease despite their years of experience. If you look at movies like THE EXORCIST, ROSEMARY'S BABY, THE HAUNTING and LET'S SCARE JESSICA TO DEATH you see adult women facing a supernatural foe as well as a struggle to find one soul who will believe them and help them. Instead the men they look to for help brand them as mentally ill, hysterical or otherwise not of clear mind.

THE EXORCIST points out a specific area where credibility is often questioned: in the doctor's office. In the movie Reagan's doctors keep finding no evidence to support their theories about her mysterious illness, yet they will not give up on them and refuse to listen to Reagan or her mother. In WES CRAVEN'S NEW NIGHTMARE, a similar situation is seen in Heather and her son. The doctors, stuck in their rigid paradigm with no will to leave it, cannot accept the possibility that the boy's problem is not physiological. They even go so far as to believe his mother is abusing them before they'll believe that something supernatural is happening. And this film is unique in that it mirrors the real world where the characters are aware of the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET movies and that nobody ever believes it's Freddy until it's too late. But still, when faced with a fantastical circumstance that could very well be out of one of those movies, they cling to a mindset where those things are not real, where it is just a movie and there is no explanation that is not scientific and tangible.

As you can see, this is a fairly common plot device in horror. There are many others which feature characters facing similar challenges in credibility and quite often it's young people or adult women who are disbelieved. I believe this reveals something about ourselves, that we and society are less likely to believe the claims of certain types of people simply because of a perceived lack of knowledge or experience. An incredible claim doesn't not necessarily mean it isn't true, but I suppose we would rather it not be true than face what it would mean for monsters, ghosts and ghouls to be such a real threat.

High Tension, Low Tolerance

2008-01-24T13:41:00.000-06:00

The past few years I have been experiencing a decreasing physical tolerance to many things. I suppose it's a consequence of age in some ways, but I've also got this digestive-disease monkey on my back which makes things worse.

My tolerance for alcohol greatly decreased at some point during 2005. I estimate this, as it is between the binges that characterized my senior year of college and the times I started getting uncharacteristically sick in 2006 after drinking only a fraction of what I had drank in times past. I had only vomited once before, but began doing so a bit more often until I finally gave in and changed my drinking habits. Even then, I still had some digestive troubles.

My tolerance for medicine seems to have always been low, as I can't remember a time that taking allergy medicine didn't make me loopy. These days, the effects are less fun and more nauseating. New medications often give me nausea, and I can't take Vicodin for more than a couple days before the nausea just becomes too much. No risk of addiction there, I suppose.

Sadly, my tolerance for gore has dramatically decreased over the past several months as well. Not that I ever won "Poker Face of the Year" while watching a gory movie, but at least I could handle watching it. While I can still tolerate it, I feel that my body is less delighted to withstand not only the violence, but the suspense in horror films.

I was watching HIGH TENSION the other night, which I've seen before. To say I was watching it is a little misleading, as much of the time I was often doing something else or on my computer as I listened to what was going on. This is not behavior I reserve for horror movies, I often do it just because I like to multi-task, and a good movie is nice background while doing other chores. It makes it feel less like work. However this time, I think I did purposely do it.

That stress which feels so much like riding a roller coaster, and the revulsion at the sight of blood is no longer tolerated very well by my body. I find it really unnerving, because I am still very much a fan of horror. If this keeps getting worse, how am I to continue enjoying my favorite genre?

Then again, maybe like any medicine if I keep exposing myself to those feelings my sensitivity will settle back down again.

I talk about my health and body way more than anybody else I know. You have to understand that it's on my mind every single day. Maybe as time goes on and I adjust to it I will be more accepting and be able to resist letting it take over my life. But it's still very fresh and young, and like the physical healing that has to occur, the emotional healing takes a lot of work, time and patience.

I promise that the next blog I write will not be about my health... will not touch upon it at all. I'm even sick of hearing myself write about this. Let's move on!

The High Price of Weight Loss

2008-01-16T17:47:00.000-06:00

I don't really talk about weight that often, although perhaps more often in recent years than any other time. It's kind of an embarrassing topic because I've been overweight ever since grade school. There were a few years when I was really young when I was pretty normal. But combine a lack of knowledge about healthy eating habits with an addictive personality (and possibility an oral fixation) and well... I ate quite a bit, without doing much physical activity.

I tried and tried during my teenage years to lose some weight, but I was often not a happy child which made it difficult to change my habits. It was a cycle really, my social life sucked because I was fat/miserable, and I was miserable because my social life sucked, and I stayed fat because I was too miserable to change my eating and exercise habits.

I met my share of ridicule because of how I looked, although it mostly died off in high school. It was replaced with an invisibility syndrome that has stuck with me even now. It was like I didn't exist to most of the people I went to school with, which is funny because I was hard to miss.

Over the years I tried various exercise tapes, machines, made small changes to my diet. It wasn't really enough, and by the time I got to college it stopped mattering because I met my first boyfriend. He didn't seem to care how I looked, and loved me all the same. We ate junk food all the time because, well, we were college students. And I didn't feel a pressing need to watch my weight, although I did casually at times.

When we broke up, all bets were off. There was a time when I wasn't eating much, but I drank in place of food. That gave way to being too miserable to care, and perpetuated my habit of eating whatever without thinking about its consequences. One day during the summer after I graduated from college, I saw that I had reached 220 lbs and freaked out. I joined Weight Watchers, and overall lost about 30 lbs on that. It was the first time in my entire life that I had actually lost weight.

It wasn't long after this weight loss that I started to notice that I might have a lactose intolerance. In fact, it may have coincided. Now it's worth mentioning at this point that I had had digestive issues for most of my life. It was constipation when I was younger, which eventually turned to a tendency towards looseness during college and eventually occasions of diarrhea in the years after. I've had all sorts of abdominal pains, cramps, gas, weird sensations, nausea. I suspect that I've had irritable bowel syndrome for a long time.

Was this what led to the lactose intolerance? Maybe. But knowing what I do now, I actually suspect that the lactose intolerance was a sign of the beginning of the end, so to speak. I think it was the first sign that my body might be set up for Inflammatory Bowel Disease. If I really want to stretch it, I could say that there might have even been signs back in college when my boyfriend and I broke up. I do remember feeling as though something inside my body was changing simply from all the heartbreak and stress.

In any case, I believe-- but have no hard evidence to back it up-- that up until October of 2006 I was protected from the possibility of my IBD being triggered, and that I was protected by cigarettes of all things. My parents smoke, and I did from the ages of about 17 through 24. Five months after I quit, I got a stomach flu and have been experiencing IBD symptoms ever since.

There are many other people with Ulcerative Colitis-- one form of IBD-- who have similar stories where their disease was not triggered until after they quit smoking. My doctor is not totally sure that I have that form yet, but I suspect that I do.

Talk about paying a high price for something positive-- there's research out there that suggests it's the carbon monoxide in cigarette smoke that prevents inflammation. Let's see, I can either get lung cancer/emphysema/chronic bronchitis OR a chronic auto-immune disease that produces random flares of bloody diarrhea that will increase my chances of acquiring colon cancer, among other things. Hm! What a choice.

For now, my disease is under control. But I believe my IBS has been exacerbated by the inflammation, and that whatever damage that was done to my colon is keeping a few stray symptoms hanging around. I definitely can not eat whatever I want to anymore without paying for it, whether I pay sooner or later. My doctor officially says that even if a food makes me feel sick, it's not doing any damage-- but he has to say that because scientific research has not proved that certain diets help or hurt this disease. Me, I'd rather not eat something that makes me feel like I have a flu or sends me running to the bathroom first thing in the morning. Craziness, I know.

This means that I've been avoiding a lot of foods. Anything difficult to digest, anything too high in fat or fiber, almost all dairy, caffeine, alcohol, sugary, even limiting my amounts of carbonated soft drinks. It doesn't mean I don't ever eat those things, but I certainly don't have them very often. Furthermore, the things I do eat I eat less of. I'm hoping that one day I will be able to eat more normally again, but I know that I'm going to have to be patient and give my body the time (and resources) it needs to heal.

During the 6 or 7 months that I was first sick I lost quite a bit of weight. Not as much as others, since I suppose my disease was not as bad-- but a good 15 pounds. Since I've been on medication to control it, I've lost another 10 pounds. I don't know if that indicates that my disease is not entirely under control, or that I'm not absorbing nutrients properly, or if it's just a consequence of eating much healthier than I have in a long time. But as long as I'm not feeling too bad and am not getting sick like I was last year, I'll assume it's healthy weight loss.

I haven't weighed in at 165 (where I am now) since high school. Hell, I'm pretty sure I weighed more than that for at least part of high school. Is it worth it? Not really. It's too high a price, and I'd take the weight back if it meant I could give away the disease and all its physical damage. I think anyone who has IBD would agree with me.

It's a serious disease, and chances are it will get worse whether sooner or later. People who know me have had to hear me talk about it much more than I'm sure they've wanted to. But it's the sort of thing that really does affect your entire life, and it takes strength to resist letting it take over and limit your existence. In fact, it can ruin some people's lives just from the obscene cost of treatment, hospital bills, etc. I talk about it because it's not talked about enough, and the rates of people diagnosed with this disease keep rising. Nobody ever got better research, medications, treatments and-- most of all-- a cure by staying silent.

It Felt Like Eternity

2008-01-09T18:34:00.000-06:00

For all of the brilliant ideas I kept having for blog entries I'm surprised to sit down and find out that they've snuck away from me while I was busy doing other things. I had to come up with something brand new that hadn't been thought out beforehand. More than that, I had to come up with something that I could actually post publicly. I always have critical thoughts, and I find that many of them are better left unsaid. Especially when you're so often given lame excuses for why something is wrong-- "That's just the way it is. Of course it doesn't make sense!" That's so passive it makes me sick. There, I said it.

This is the thought process that led me to consider my own passiveness at life. I'm not a proactive, aggressive person. I let things happen to me and then react to them, and I avoid doing anything that I find to be too much of a chore. I believe this is a result of several factors, such as laziness, low self-esteem, fear of failure and selfishness. But I suppose in a way I could also blame my desire for immortality.

That, by the way, is the flashy way of saying I'm afraid of dying.

The funny part about my fear is that I do believe that there is something beyond death. I prefer to say that I know there is, but I'll be more diplomatic about it for the non-believers. I really do believe that there is life after death, that souls or something similar to them exist, that there is a non-human force out in the universe with its finger in the honeypot that is humanity. Why the hell am I afraid then? I suppose because of what a huge shock and change it must be to go from one plane of existance to another. Even if I do believe that I know for sure there is something, I don't know exactly what it is or what it's like. And I'm selfish for life as I know it, life as I am.

But if I hang back doing little to further the steps of my life along it does feel as though time itself has slowed. It's such a well known fact that when you get busy, time flies. When you're bored and have nothing to do, it crawls. In reality we know that it only seems that way to us, but what is reality without perception? I know I'm getting into some hardcore cliches here, "If a tree falls in the forest" and all that, but I think my subconscious really does believe those things.

And I see other people doing this too. They put off tasks, delay chores, express annoyed compliance with the things that "just are" for no logical reason except that no one bothers to change them. Sometimes they're just being lazy, sometimes afraid that they're simply incapable; but sometimes I think they're just trying to squeeze a few more diluted, tasteless drops out of life in the pursuit of a longer life. Delaying everything in order to delay the inevitable last moment.

Of course, it's going to come anyways whether we're ready or not. And then we'll say, "Oh no! But I wasn't finished, this can't be the last one." And it will say back to us, "You had your chance, lady. It's off to the River Styx for you now." Then we'll say, "Oh that's just fine, I rather like them anyhow. Do you have karaoke down by the river?"

And that's why you should always do what you can when you can, unless you want to hear other people do classic rock karaoke for eternity. Except of course when living your life to the fullest inevitably leads to loss of said life or a severe downgrade in quality thereof. That's just bloody stupid, and it honestly annoys the crap out of me when people take that concept too far. There's a line, and that line is drawn in dirt by a scythe. But I digress.

Return to House on Haunted Hill

2007-10-27T19:37:00.000-06:00

I wanted to like this movie. I wanted to love this movie. I was praying that although the idea of filming a sequel to a remake sounds ludicrous, maybe it was so crazy it would work.

As a general rule, I don't like remakes. Most are tackling films that were great to begin with and they usually fall terribly short of their goals. When they aren't making the exact same movie as before, they're tampering with key elements that completely change the original story, elements that were important to the success of that story. Get me started about the remake of THE HAUNTING, and you'll see what I mean.

The original HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL isn't exactly brilliant, but it's a favorite of mine for various reasons. I was skeptical of course when I heard they were remaking it, but since the original did have room for improvement I gave the remake a shot. To my surprise, I ended up really enjoying it. Although much of the original story had been changed, the characters and their relationships were still basically in tact. The changes that were made actually created a more interesting, scarier movie than the first.

So when I heard that they were doing a sequel, I was excited. I forgot to be wary though.

It was painful. The dialogue is horrible, the acting pathetic. The characters are shallow and underdeveloped-- and worse, they try to make up for that with one of the most embarrassing extras on the disc, the "character confessionals." Making it seem like the characters are being interviewed while in the house, they discuss their very obviously unscripted background, motives and opinions about the house. Whoever wrote this obviously never took a creative writing class, or they would have learned that you don't explain your characters to your audience, you *show* them.

Cliches abound, and not in an interesting way. They even changed the story-- again! This time, the change was a huge mistake. They took the movie in a different direction, and I was not along for the ride. I stood in the hallway saying, "But... no... you're supposed to go THIS way." One of my pet peeves is when movies take a story that speaks to the power of human evil, that demonstrates how people can be the scariest monsters of all, and tweaks it into a fantasy about ancient evil causing all the horror. When will they learn? Pointing and saying, "Here's the source of the evil! I found it! Now we know why this is happening!" makes it LESS SCARY. Especially when it doesn't make any sense.

If you can believe it, they even ripped off INDIANA JONES a little bit, in a completely laughable way. I was embarrassed for the people who made this movie, since they obviously have no shame.

The remake of HOUSE had so much going for it, compared to most remakes. They had a solid cast of very good actors, with a few delightful cameos. They took a story we already knew in a different direction that actually worked and intrigued the audience. They updated it in a believable way and gave us some pretty wild special effects and visuals-- the "darkness" aside, I wasn't crazy about that. The music they used was even really effective.

It just makes me sad that the sequel fell short. They tried to reveal everything without realizing that what they were showing us wasn't at all interesting.

This is probably the craziest thing I've ever said, but I really hope that somebody remakes this movie. It had so much potential, it literally pains me to see it fail.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Part 3

2007-08-02T14:42:00.000-06:00

Season 2

Since the first season was so short, Season 2 of Buffy gives us more of a chance to learn about our main characters while we are introduced to a couple new individuals. The very first episode demonstrates just how deep and intense Buffy's contradicting feelings are regarding her life (including a beautifully done scene involving Buffy, Xander and Cibo Matto). It's obvious that she has a love/hate relationship with her role as the Slayer, but there's something so much more raw going on underneath that. It's only hinted at during most of the series, until the final season when we finally have a chance to understand how deeply Buffy is affected and how delicate a balance she keeps in her mind and heart. There's always a sense of loneliness about her-- the loneliness of leadership-- but I don't think anyone could foresee just how much she suffers and what a life as the Slayer has done to her.

Heading back into this season, one of my impressions when gazing at the episode list is one of amazement. How Buffy and her friends keep their sanity is beyond me. Around every corner there's some beast, ghoul, ghost, meanie, waiting to do something horrible. I know, it's the Hellmouth... and I know, we wouldn't have a show if that weren't the case... but looking at it realistically it's hard to imagine having to deal with that volume of eerie and dangerous incidents. Which makes the first point I made more and more understandable.

There are a few real gems in this season. The arch that drapes around the rest of the plot is Buffy's relationship with Angel. They fall in love and end up consummating their relationship which, unbeknownst to either party, releases Angel's soul. The real brilliance in this is David Boreanaz's ability to play two very different characters and how well he does it. You know without confirmation from other characters when he is Angelus and when he's Angel based on his body language and facial expressions alone. "Innocence" captures this really well.

Buffy is faced with double trouble: first of all, Angelus is back and dedicated to destroying her life and the people in it. Second, even if she did get him his soul back they could never have a complete relationship. The second matter is not explored as much in this season, although it certainly exists-- it will be a huge part of season 3's common thread.

One of the greatest episodes of the entire series happens to be in season 2, called "I Only Have Eyes for You." The way that the subplot of the episode layers perfectly with the general plot of the season is beautiful, and the story is touching. Like any of the best episodes, part of the reason this episode works so wonderfully is because of the music chosen. "Passion" is another episode in which music heightens the effect, although it also utilizes some philosophical narration by Angel which I thought really contributed to the message of the episode as a whole.

It being my favorite holiday, I have a soft spot for the Halloween episode in this season-- the first of the series. It's established here that apparently demons find it too tacky to do any bit of evil on Halloween, leaving Buffy supposedly without work for one night of her life. Of course this doesn't always happen, leading to the three Halloween episodes that do exist in the series. The other two are "All the Way" in season 6 and "Fear, Itself" in season 4.

By the end of season 2, Buffy is in the worst of spots. She's been expelled from school, the police are after her regarding Kendra's death, her mother finds out she's the Slayer and then basically kicks her out of the house, and worst of all she ends up killing Angel, even after Willow's spell to bring his soul back works. At the end of the last episode, Buffy leaves town. Once again, the burden of being the Slayer forces her (in her mind) into isolation.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Part 2

2007-07-16T13:59:00.000-06:00

Season 1

The first season finds Buffy and her mother attempting to start their lives over again in Sunnydale, after being forced to move from LA due to the trouble Buffy got into in the course of her Slayer duties. Buffy is hoping to shrug off the past and lead a normal life once again. In fact, one could say the entire series is about Buffy trying to live a normal life while dealing with forces most people never dream exist.

But of course there is a rhyme and a reason for Buffy ending up in Sunnydale, home to a Hellmouth that draws the supernatural like compost draws flies. Obviously normal is out of the question.

In what was really half a season, we are introduced to several characters that end up being important to Buffy's story. Buffy herself is contradictory, being a trendy, fun-loving, relatively unexperienced teenager as well as a strong, intelligent leader. Despite all that she went through in LA, she quickly finds that it's nothing compared to what lies ahead of her. The rest of the characters dip heavily into stereotypes, but are thankfully fleshed out during the season to reveal much more realistic personalities.

What was most amazing right from the very beginning is the way the show handles real issues under the guise of the supernatural. In this first season alone one can see storylines that discuss parental pressure, sex, dating, bullying, the dangers of the internet and child abuse. Most of all is the theme that nothing and no one is ever what they seem. These topics are treated within the context of monsters, magic, etc. but the messages still resonate for viewers in a very real way.

Perhaps the biggest lesson of all is one that the audience learns-- that normal or extraordinary, everyone deals with similar problems and issues over the course of their life, and there is no easy way out of that. How you deal with those things is what defines you, the same way it defines the characters you're watching on your TV.

And in the final episode of the season, Buffy is introduced to another continuing theme of the series: her own mortality. How she handles that speaks volumes about what things will be like in the rest of the series.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Part 1

2007-07-13T09:31:00.000-06:00

The last few months of 1997 I was 15 years old, a sophomore in high school. I fit the typical honors student/nerd stereotype for the most part, but I also had a love for all things spooky, mystical and otherworldly. I'd been reading about the supernatural ever since I was old enough to comprehend it, and at that point in my life I had been following Wicca for about 2 years.

I've learned over the years that once you get people talking about ghosts, astrology, vampires, fortune-telling, witchcraft, etc. they often are fascinated by some tidbit or another, and are rather impressed that you know of such things. At 15, I didn't talk to very many people and thought I would be judged harshly for being interested in such taboo topics. I was also often depressed as a teenager, so I would look for an escape in books, movies, TV-- anything.

Luckily that year the WB debuted a brand new TV show called Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I remember seeing a commercial for it and being very intrigued. I'd seen the movie of the same name and thought it fun, but not much more than that. When I saw that first episode I was hooked. The characters were my age, the dialogue was witty and more importantly, the show was about something I was passionately interested in.

I rarely missed an episode until years later when a job I had interfered, but even then I would often tape episodes and watch them the next day. The show made me feel like I belonged somewhere. I would imagine myself as part of Buffy's world, and dream up all sorts of ways that I would help them out, become part of their group. As you might guess, this did lead to my own little bout of fan fiction. It was actually the longest piece of fiction I had ever written, about the size of a small novel. That's how much Buffy inspired me.

It killed me when the show ended, but at the same time I knew it would just go downhill if it went on for too long. I think we all felt some of the pressure and tension that was around that last season. I still thought it was one of their best seasons ever, although I know other fans would disagree. The way they ended the series brought me to tears, as I'm sure it did many others. Over the years I collected the entire show on DVD and have watched it in its entirety at least 3 times.

This show has meant everything to me. It's taught me a lot about who I am and who I want to be. As Buffy grew into adulthood, so did I. I feel like that character has done more to shape me than anyone else could have done, and I know that watching the show got me through some really rough times. Now I'm starting a 4th run through the entire series to see what it has in store for me at this point in my life.

Morton Arboretum

2007-06-18T19:54:00.000-06:00

After years of knowing about the Morton Arboretum but never actually seeing it, I finally started visiting it in the past year. I made my first summer trip last week, and for the first time noticed on the Arboretum map that the Morton family cemetery is on the grounds. Having a particular interest in cemeteries, I had to see it...

The path to the cemetery

A lake inside the Arboretum

Hostel Part II

2007-06-13T17:28:00.000-06:00

I really wasn't a big fan of the first HOSTEL. It was okay, but in my mind it just wasn't a great movie. The plot is original and intriguing, I'll admit that. And I do enjoy my gore as much as the next girl. It was the beginning of the movie that really turned me off, so by the time we got into the good stuff I was praying the main characters would die quickly. Imagine my surprise when I discovered myself sitting in the theatre ready to watch HOSTEL PART II.

In this sequel, the plot of the original is played through again with a group of American girls going to school in Rome. They plan to take a trip to Prague, but are persuaded into traveling to Slovakia instead. As you might suspect they end up staying in a hostel, and are picked off one by one by the now very organized and very business-like club from the original. In PART II though, we also get to see what things are like from the perspective of the sick people who pay to kill the young travelers.

I wish I could say otherwise, but frankly I remain unimpressed. Prior to seeing the film myself I did read other reviews, so I was looking forward to the character development. It was definitely interesting, but it felt too shallow for me. And I didn't enjoy Heather Matarazzo's character at all, it felt too silly to me. They could have done so much more with both the girls and the killers. Their stereotypes were so obvious, and there was no subtlety to the symbolism. Not to spoil part of the movie, but the surviving girl might as well have had "FINAL GIRL" stamped on her forehead, and worn a t-shirt with a complete citation to Carol Clover on the front of it. It was so blatant that it half-ruined the ending for me.

Despite my criticism, it isn't a horrible movie. It's okay, but not great. It does explore female stereotypes, the effect that horrors inflicted upon women can have, and why women might be targets for that sort of violence. I thought the direction of the character development was good, it just needed more follow through. Honestly, as soon as the film ended I thought to myself, "That's it?" I wasn't expecting it to end when it did.

Those who were fans of the original HOSTEL will most likely enjoy PART II as well, especially for the fresh crop of victims and the peek into the minds of the killers. There are some really great scenes and what it attempts to do is at least interesting. But overall, I felt they could have done much more with the characters and the plot in a sequel such as this, which is really what I was expecting.

Ocean's Thirteen

2007-06-11T10:05:00.000-06:00

In the past I've owned some pretty snobby ideas of what constituted good taste in film, among other things. Independent film, foreign flicks, unique cynical comedy. Opening up to a love of horror starts to destroy those ideals in a way, because of how much sludge you become exposed to... and how much you actually love to wallow in such filth. But it also eventually created space for me to appreciate a wider variety of genres, which is what led me to my surprising enjoyment of action, adventure, and eventually heist films like OCEAN'S TWELVE.

I saw OCEAN'S TWELVE in the theater and really enjoyed it. As I've learned in the past few months, that is not a popular opinion. Most people felt TWELVE was weaker than the first film (OCEAN'S ELEVEN). I eventually watched ELEVEN, and obviously liked it just as much. Looking back, I suppose there are some weak moments in TWELVE, but I love it so damn much that I really don't hold those weaknesses against it.

That said, I thought OCEAN'S THIRTEEN was absolutely wonderful. The two things that make this series so attractive to me are the visuals and the music. The shots are great, the sets are beautiful, and the color blows me away every time. The music in the previous two films has been a perfect complement to this particular kind of film, and THIRTEEN is no exception. I don't mean to gloss over the relationships and chemistry of not only the characters, but the actors themselves. Nor am I ignoring the brilliance of the plot-- there's an incredible attention to detail, and it keeps me delighted throughout the entire film. Those factors are just as influential when it comes to my opinion of the OCEAN'S series.

Regardless of my disagreement with other critics when it comes to the previous film, I echo their overwhelmingly positive response to OCEAN'S THIRTEEN. It's an amazing piece of work, and I can't wait to see it on DVD.

Hard Candy

2007-06-07T19:39:00.000-06:00

To say that HARD CANDY (2005) is a film that plays with gender roles would be too simplistic and obvious, though true. Furthermore, I feel that ultimately what power lies in the movie has less to do with the gender of the main characters and more to do with other facets of their relationship. This isn't about a girl taking revenge upon a man, and all the inferences made by that act. This isn't I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. To take a lesson from the 7th season of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," it's about power.

You could say that typically men have had power in our society, and you'd be right. But this film isn't commenting on which gender has the power, who steals it from whom, etc. Jeff, the thirty-something photographer, doesn't really have any power. Any that he seems to have is an illusion created by Hayley, a 14 year old girl he meets on the internet.

Hayley on the other hand has all the power. She's intelligent, crafty and persuasive. What's amazing about that isn't the fact that she's female-- it's that she's only 14, but she talks as if she's at least twice that. While I'm on the topic, kudos to Ellen Page for her performance because I found it hypnotic. It's obvious from the beginning though that Hayley's calling the shots. She convinces Jeff to meet in real life, and then to bring her back to his apartment. The next thing he knows, he's been drugged and tied to a chair.

So who's the wolf in sheep's clothing here? It's "Little Red Riding Hood" for heterosexual male pedophiles. Beware the little girl skipping down the path.

The thing I most enjoyed about this film is how it played on my sympathies. As much as it sends a warning to bad sheep pretending to be wolves, it also grabs the viewer by the collar and asks them to take a side. It would be so easy to side with Hayley, commend her on justice well-served and be glad that the world of HARD CANDY is rid one more pedophile. But I honestly felt bad for the guy. I wanted Hayley to get caught, and I wanted her to be punished in a sense, for playing such a dangerous game. She was obviously crazy and didn't have the right to take Jeff's punishment into her own hands.

To have that opinion sounds horrible, given the situation. Let the pedophile win? That's not right! But the point the film tries to make is that while he may have unnatural desires, he's still a human being made up of human experiences. He's no monster, he barely has any personal power. The only thing I can glean from my reaction is that I didn't believe a child had a right to consume and wield all that power. It felt wrong, and I wanted her to fail because of it. It's so bizarre to think that, but that's kind of what I liked about the film.

HARD CANDY isn't a gory film at all. The entire effect is achieved through a battle of wills, complemented by the physical tension of a few chases around the house. But in the end, it's Hayley's mind and power which are scariest.

The Answer to The Question: Favorites

2007-05-23T19:51:00.000-06:00

Whenever I meet someone new and get to talking about my interests, my love of horror movies inevitably comes up. It's one of the defining features of my personality, and besides that it's an easy icebreaker. Everyone has some kind of opinion on horror films, or can cite at least one that really scared them. Everyone's afraid of something, and just as there's a magazine for every hobby on Earth-- and there is, trust me-- there's also a horror movie that addresses just about any fear you can come up with. One of mine happens to be a fear of someone invading my "home" space-- which involves anything from harassing phone calls to outright breaking and entering. Needless to say, movies like WHEN A STRANGER CALLS and BLACK CHRISTMAS (among many others) leave me completely freaked out.

Without fail, anytime someone finds out how obsessed I am with horror movies they invariably ask me what my favorite horror movie is. I make some pathetic attempt at an answer, but it's hard to summarize my feelings about the genre in a way that won't make the inquirer wish they hadn't bothered asking. Although I may never solve that specific problem, I've come upon a method of attacking the question with at least some kind of organization.

The short answer is that I don't have a favorite. Or even a brief list of them, for that matter. My list of favorite horror movies involves two categories of films: those I believe to be great films that represent the best of the genre, and those that I enjoy watching, even if they aren't technically "good" examples of filmmaking. I suspect that any true horror fan would say the same of their own list of "favorites." If you ever run into someone who claims to have impeccable taste, that all of their favorites are undeniably great films and that they have no guilty B-movie pleasures, then you have discovered a "horror snob." That or a complete liar. Either way, I don't consider these people true fans of the genre. Consider the nature of horror films, and you'll see why no horror fan has any right to be conceited (or secretive) about their taste.

What it comes down to is brilliant filmmaking versus mindless entertainment. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but there is a good amount of separation. For most horror movies, the best they can aspire to is being interesting to analyze-- in terms of culture, psychology, gender studies, politics, etc. But we love them anyhow, don't we? Even the ones that are completely void of all intellectual stimulation.

I've always been of the mind that films in general were better made in decades past. There are plenty of other people out there who would argue the same, so I'm in good company even though not everyone agrees. My point is that some of the movies I consider "the best" of the horror genre are old films-- in fact, most are. I include classics like DRACULA, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, THE EXORCIST AND PSYCHO. The reason they're classics is because it's hard to deny their quality. As much as I do love the newer version, you can't beat Bela Legosi's portrayal of Dracula. The influence of George Romero's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is still felt in 21st century zombie films. THE EXORCIST brings out the dark side of religion and asks us to face pure evil as well as questions of faith, and whether that spells out our doom. PSYCHO is a fantastic study of insanity, homicide and sexual issues, and the portrayal of Norman Bates is perfect.

On the other hand, there are other older horror films that may not be mainstream classics, but are still incredible films in their own right. My examples include THE HAUNTING and DRACULA'S DAUGHTER. The former is brilliant for multiple reasons, not least of which is the fact that there are no concrete answers at the end of the movie. The audience is left to wonder themselves whether the house was haunted, or the main character (marvelously portrayed) was simply crazy. The latter film isn't well known, but is a hugely interesting look at what it would seriously feel like to be Dracula's spawn. Some films might take a subject like this towards a campy tone, but DRACULA'S DAUGHTER is completely serious. It explores the main character's inner conflict regarding her vampiric nature, and is subtly sensual as all great vampire movies should be.

Although most slasher flicks usually fall into the entertainment category more often than being considered "great" films, I do include a couple. First of which is HALLOWEEN, another classic that I'm sure many horror fans would agree with. I would also say that one of my favorites is THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, because of both the style of filmmaking and the social statements it makes. A little less known is the film TERROR TRAIN, which creates some interesting tension, provides a framework for discussing revenge, peer interactions, etc. and furthermore, also stars Jamie Lee Curtis.

I'm not made of stone however, I do currently include one movie on my "high quality" list which is more recent: SESSION 9. I think this was one of the best horror movies in the past decade, if not longer. It provides some blood, but ultimately takes the route of psychological terror using a classic "scary story" based plot about an old insane asylum. It uses the overdone plot twist, but does so in such an intriguing way that I can't hold it against the film.

I've already mentioned one seminal zombie film, but I would add two more recent films from the subgenre to my list of favorites: 28 DAYS LATER and 28 WEEKS LATER. Watching these films, zombies feel not only terrifying and hellish-- they feel real. They aren't stumbling about a graveyard in a midnight fog, they're breathing down your neck. That's what makes any horror movie great, in my book.

The reasons behind my entertainment-based picks are much simpler to explain: They're fun movies. You don't have to think about them, although you usually can extract some intriguing analysis. They're witty, ridiculous, funny, gory and sometimes all of the above.

Films like NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and the SCREAM trilogy rely on quite a bit of wit in order to make themselves work effectively. There are scares, there is blood, but the dialogue between characters is also pretty important-- and fun! Of course, they each use their wit differently, and I wouldn't compare the two unless I felt apples and oranges were suddenly in a similar class of fruit.

On the other hand, there are movies like HOUSE OF THE DEAD and ROCK 'N' ROLL NIGHTMARE. The only redeeming thing about these movies is how ridiculous and funny they can be. I apologize to everyone who honestly thinks that one or both of these movies are of decent quality, but this is just my opinion. It obviously doesn't mean that I don't like them, or else I wouldn't mention them. I just hate that I enjoy HOUSE OF THE DEAD, and am obsessed with NIGHTMARE for no logical reason.

FRIDAY THE 13TH, EVIL DEAD and THIR13EN GHOSTS (2001) are entertaining mostly for their gore and/or their visual effects. While they might have other redeeming factors, it's primary a visual love which causes me to include these films on my list. Of course, for a true gore-fest I rely on DEAD ALIVE.

As you might have gathered from my lengthy introduction, this is not a complete list. I'm sure I'm forgetting at least a handful of films that exemplify my taste in horror. God-willing, as time goes on I'll find even more films to add. Like any other horror fan my tastes have been shaped and limited not only by time and availability, but my own psyche and experience. So don't hate on me if you think my list is boring, typical, lacking or wrong simply because it doesn't resemble yours. If you're going to be critical, at least be helpful while you're at it! That's what I always say. Recommend something, I'll be grateful. Thank you, goodnight.

28 Weeks Later

2007-05-11T21:32:00.000-06:00

There's nothing quite like a good horror movie to keep you on the edge of a panic attack for the rest of the night. Granted, I am one of those women who finds it necessary to prove her masculinity by doing things like watching scary movies without batting an eye, lifting heavy objects and trying to fix things herself. I'm not sure what that's about, something from my childhood I suppose. No brothers, which actually makes it more intriguing. That's besides the point...

While I may in fact have bigger balls (horrifically speaking) than some men out there and can be totally unaffected by some horror, I do in fact have a reaction to certain films, especially when they're well done. If you're wondering how 28 WEEKS LATER is, let's just say I checked my backseat about 5 times, and half-expected a zombie to rush out at me while walking from the parking lot to my apartment building. It doesn't help that the property has a lot of bushes, it gives the living dead a lot of places to hide. I'll start carrying a machete one of these days.

I did read the reviews, which is part of why I went to see 28 WEEKS LATER on the first night. It was that or SPIDERMAN 3, and from what I've heard so far about it, I'm matineeing Peter Parker's ass.

Whenever I read somewhat unanimous reviews, I try very hard not to let them influence my own opinion of a film. It's impossible to do completely, but I like to think that I can be somewhat objective. Frankly, I really enjoyed 28 WEEKS LATER.

The suspense was fantastic, first of all. There's this very steady tension throughout most of the movie, which is half the battle for horror movies in my opinion. Every time there's some bit of relief, you're thankful for it because you've been on the edge for that long. There were certain things I expected to happen that didn't, and there were things I totally didn't expect that happened. If anything I predicted had actually happened it would have taken the film down a notch in my evaluation, but none of it did.

I won't dare claim it was perfect, I do have a couple of things that I would have liked to see differently. For example, I feel like somehow I didn't get enough of what was going on within the military aside from a few scenes. I guess if this is the sort of story focusing on the lone band of survivors and their personal stories, then there wouldn't be room (or a need) to explore other perspectives. I'm not even positive what I'm looking for, I just know that I felt something wasn't totally explained, or I didn't completely get a sense of what was going on.

Speaking of that, the ending sort of puzzled me. Maybe if I think about it more and watch it again I'll get it. I mean, it screams "Insert next installment" I'm just not totally sure what happened at the very end regardless of what they might address in another sequel.

Some of the camerawork was a little dizzying at times, but overall I saw some really great looking shots. You aren't getting a brightly lit, uber-detailed view of total carnage and gore. These are well thought out, artistic shots... of said carnage and gore. It's a zombie film, right? It doesn't matter how nicely it's done, it sort of depends on the blood and guts.

The important thing is that it made me fear for my blood and guts. You'll be happy to know that I made it to my apartment safely. Good night, and wish me sweet dreams-- I just might need it.

The Exorcist

2007-01-15T15:57:00.000-06:00

THE EXORCIST (1973) is classic in the way it portrays Christian horror. It's one of the best-rated horror movies of all time (imdb.com), so it's only natural that it should be just about the best example of religion-themed horror. As with any film of that nature, it shows us the struggle between good and evil. THE EXORCIST also explores the everlasting battle between science and religion in addition to questions of faith. Put aside the supernatural, demonic events of the film and you have some very realistic issues that the characters are dealing with.

At some level horror films are loveable because they scare, challenge and entertain us. Monsters taken at face value are still great monsters-- we love them, we hate them, we fear them, we cheer for them. But at another level, a deeper level, horror is enjoyable because of what those monsters-- and their victims-- represent to us. Who do we identify with, and why? Does the movie scare us because of how fantastic and unnatural the horrors are, or because they embody a very real threat?

When we're watching Regan and her mother suffer physically and emotionally at the hands of doctors who still can't figure out what's wrong, is our sympathetic fear caused out of knowledge that Regan is actually possessed by something evil? Or are we also subconsciously identifying with them because of instances where medical science has given us, or someone we love just cause to lose faith in the power of medicine?

Worse, that we should have faith in nothing besides man-- for when we finally lose faith in that, we have lost all possibility of salvation. You may not agree, but I suggest that this is at least one message that most religious horror films attempt to get across. They give us a situation in which faith in man is gone or severely depleted, and the only thing left to save us is belief in something higher.

This isn't so far-fetched, either. Those who do participate in religion or spirituality would agree quickly, and I would literally be preaching to the choir. Something bad happens, and your alternatives are to a) become bitter, cynical, jaded, depressed, etc. or else b) put your faith in God or some kind of deity and believe that it's a challenge, it was meant to be, that you'll be alright-- as long as you have that faith. Even if you're not a spiritual person, there are such things as ideals. If you don't want to become bitter and unhappy, you look to those ideals to save you from a miserable life: duty, loyalty, friendship, love, family, service, selflessness, work ethics, etc.

Faith is a core issue in THE EXORCIST. Chris MacNeil (Regan's mother) isn't religious, and hasn't raised her daughter to be. She's divorced, so all she really has is her daughter and the love they have for eachother which is threatened when Regan becomes "ill." MacNeil uses her money and fame to get Regan the best doctors, but even that won't help. With no hope left in wealth, medicine, or the familial bond she turns to the last place she would have ever thought to look: religion.

This is where she finds Father Karras, who coincidentally is having a crisis of faith. Although he is a priest, he's also trained in psychology. More often than not, he finds himself relying on medicine over faith, and feels at a loss when people come to him with problems that have to do with the latter. He's also struggling with guilt over not taking better care of his elderly mother, so he has family issues of his own.

It's suggested by Kendall Phillips in the book Projected Fears: Horror Films and American Culture that for Chris and Regan, Karras acts as both a priestly Father and a familial father-- they have neither. Although his faith is lacking when he first meets them, it returns full force by the end of the movie and so he fulfills his role as priest to them by using that faith to extract Satan from Regan. He fulfills the second "father" role by taking on Regan's case, agreeing to help her and her mother and finally by selflessly sacrificing himself in exchange for Regan's life and the well-being of the family.

So in the end, although lives were lost in pursuit of the preservation of love and family, Karras has given his life renewed meaning and given someone else the gift of faith. He's absolved of his sins before he finally passes on, so he dies faithful, guiltless and redeemed. Faith in both man and God are re-established simultaneously.

Dancing

2007-01-05T22:55:00.000-06:00

I am aware
tonight is not the best time
and you should be here
And I could be dancing on the storefront glass
to cheesy modern ringtone jazz
and proving that
I'm not so, not so

Scared
But I am scared and I know
that's kinda weird
The background music's changing fast
I'm watching mannequins walk past
Their drive-by psychiatrist
and saving all my magic tricks

For you, dear
Cause I've got bragging rights,
and hand-knit prayers.
And I'm crazed, yeah I'm stark raving mad
and no one knows why I hold back
and I myself don't understand
and I wish that, I wish that

I was dancing on the storefront glass
to cheesy modern ringtone jazz
waving as those dolts walk past
and proving that
I'm not so, not so scared.

Rosemary's Baby

2007-01-03T00:51:00.000-06:00

ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968) is one of those films that tends to fall more easily into the "Thriller" genre than it does "Horror." But time and culture have defined the film as a horror film, one which does in fact frighten its audience.

The movie is definitely the type to leave an impression on an individual, rather than simply making them jump out of their skin a few times. The psychological effect is not limited to a fear of evil, supernatural forces in the world. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, it creates a paranoia and suspicion about other people. We can never really be sure that the people in our lives aren't lying to us, or betraying us without our knowledge. In Rosemary's case this deception just happens to include demonic rape, in addition to the lies, drugging, mental and physical anguish and endangerment of health.

Anyone unfamiliar with this rather well-known film will find a plot that involves a Satanic cult of witches with plans to bring forth Satan's child in a mortal woman's womb. Rosemary and Guy Woodhouse, a young couple moving into a strange Manhattan apartment building, become part of these plans when the cult's original target commits suicide. Guy is seduced by the cult with promises of fame, money and success. He allows his wife to be raped and impregnated by Satan, and lies to her throughout most of the film.

To me, this is one of the most frightening aspects of ROSEMARY'S BABY. Perhaps I speak from a female perspective when I say that the thought of your own husband betraying you in such a manner is absolutely horrifying. It makes you question how much one can really trust another human being. Rosemary becomes stuck, surrounded either by those who have Satanic designs upon her womb, or those who think she is stark raving mad.

I don't know what would be worse, having a loyal and true husband who simply becomes killed or otherwise harmed by the cult, or having one that would sacrifice his wife's body, womb, sanity, trust, etc. for the sake of money and fame. It's sick, and if I were Rosemary I would be asking myself, "What kind of man did I marry? Who could do such a thing to the woman they supposedly loved?" Like many horror movies, ROSEMARY'S BABY makes me question who the real monster is: the demon or the human.

It also makes one think about the message it sends to its viewers. First of all, it encourages distrust. You never really know what kind of person your neighbor-- or even your husband-- is. And like most horror movies, it seems to make a comment about the consequences of its characters' transgressions. ROSEMARY'S BABY in particular focuses mostly on greed and disrespect for religion, particularly Catholicism. Although the movies discussions about religion are brief and almost unassuming, it's made very clear that Guy and Roman, the older male neighbor, are against organized religion-- specifically Catholicism. They disrespect the Pope and question his authority. Rosemary was raised Catholic, but is apathetic about Guy and Roman's discussion and doesn't seem to have a strong opinion about religion.

These two characteristics, among others, make both Guy and Rosemary weak individuals open to the deception and persuasion of a Satanic cult. Rosemary is a bit stronger and smarter, but it's too little too late. She is subjected to some of the most horrific experiences that any woman can go through: demonic rape, fear for her child's life and the inability to trust anyone around her, even her own husband.

010106 Work in Progress

2007-01-03T00:22:00.000-06:00

White dress, black night
My man nowhere in sight
So I wait alone
to have and hold my own.

A dream of what it means
to live and love so free

Angels, demons; both reside
along the aisle, left and right.
Knowing well I don't believe
that either one is saving me.

Knowing that I stand alone
and wait to have and hold my own,
to have and hold my own.

Fear No Evil

2007-01-02T02:10:00.000-06:00

The 1981 film FEAR NO EVIL isn't exactly part of the Christian horror canon. Its plot attempts to discuss the Anti-Christ and the Second Coming, but has so much working against it that one really can't compare it to a classic like THE OMEN. The movie doesn't get good reviews, perhaps partially because it's easy to pick on. The acting, dialogue, plot and effects are all lacking. It has a great soundtrack, but is awkward at times. The characters are greatly underdeveloped. As far as I know, the story doesn't even have much foundation in actual Christian belief, aside from some of the basics.

Yet, I find myself coming back to this movie every once in a while. When I watch it, I do become involved and affected by it. While it isn't a great movie by any stretch of the imagination, it does have its moments. Perhaps when I watch FEAR NO EVIL, I see those strengths and can imagine what the movie could have been, if not for its failings. So many people (myself included) complain about movies being unnecessarily remade, movies that were great to begin with and didn't need to be redone or fixed. FEAR NO EVIL is one of the cases where a new eye and hand could really be useful.

For example, there is the plot. According to this film, Satan's incarnation on Earth keeps being born, killed and resurrected in a new body as three archangels-- Raphael, Michael and Gabriel-- are also born to each generation in order to pursue and destroy the Anti-Christ. It doesn't match the Bible's take on the subject, but then again it isn't necessary that the movie portray Revelations word for word. Points are awarded for creativity, so let's assume this is simply a new perspective on an old story.

If this were true, a lot more explanation is needed. It's one thing to jump into a story for the sake of immersion, and then begin to explain later on. It's another to completely ignore one's audience or assume that they can read one's mind. More character development also needs to be done. In FEAR NO EVIL, we never learn enough about the main character, the boy who's born the Anti-Christ, nor any of the archangels who are born into human bodies. The movie hints at the obvious complexity that must exist in each of these individuals, but instead wastes time on some seemingly unimportant scenes and characters.

Of course, there's always the potential for a much deeper story where the religious plot plays only a metaphorical role. Perhaps one could look at FEAR NO EVIL as a comment on ordinary people with dual identities; people who are much more important to the world than they, or others may suspect. Or maybe it's a story about the complex and emotionally messy life of a teenage boy living in a small community where he feels totally unappreciated.

Wherever the true substance of the story lies, it isn't fully realized in this movie. I can't argue against obvious deficiency, no matter how well versed in contradiction I might be. However, I can argue that it's underappreciated. There was atmosphere and suspense to the movie at times, and I believe there is an intriguing story to be told. It's simply buried under some of the mistakes that were made.

The website formerly known as Industrial Beauty

2007-01-02T01:20:00.000-06:00

If you came here looking for Industrial Beauty, I would like to direct you here, where you can view what it used to be.

Crash is a blog, not a diary. I originally wanted to limit my entries to essays on horror movies and song lyrics, but I find myself desiring a bit more. While I'd like to share the details of my life, I also intend to keep the entire blog public. Therefore, I won't be vomiting up my innermost thoughts and emotions in all their gory detail. I've been that sort of writer in the past-- being drunk often helped-- and for the most part it just made me feel embarrassed and disgusted with myself.

But I do feel that I have many worthwhile observations about the world that I want others to read. They aren't just about horror, they don't all rhyme and sometimes a photo is just not enough. One thing I've always known about myself is that having multiple passions simultaneously is a huge part of who I am, so in trying to limit my blog to certain topics I set myself up for another nearly abandoned project.

But I'm giving it another shot.

(Last updated 1/9/2008)