“Never say, ‘I’ll be right back,’ because you won’t be back.” (The State of the Slasher in 2009, Part Two)
March 3, 2009 at 6:29pm | In film, pop culture, sociology | Leave a CommentTags: "the rules", everyone loves randy meeks, final girls, friday the 13th, likeminded blogs, omfg why did someone make those sneakers, scream, slasher film, state of the slasher in 2009
It seems (after Nadine’s epic, long-awaited analysis of “The Twilight Saga”) that we here at Tiny Gems are very interested in talking about teenage sexuality and its representation in popular, youth-focused media. Which means, of course, that I’m back to the slasher film. We all know the frequently re-hashed tropes of the sexual politics of the slasher – the carnage and chaos unleashed by any active teenage (female) sexuality, the killer as punisher of sexual activity, the “Final Girl” as “masculinized” virgin, the Freudian implications of knives and wounds. Been there, done that. At this point, these generic cliches have even become the founding principle/in-joke of an entire slasher franchise (the Scream series). But what I’m wondering is, do these tropes still hold up – and if they do, do they really impose any normative ideologies over slasher audiences?
In other words – do Randy’s “rules” from Scream (1996) really mean anything today? Did they ever really exist to begin with? Could all of the many, many academics and critics who have trashed the slasher sub-genre for years be wrong about its implications?
Lady GaGa: Experimental Filmmaker
February 23, 2009 at 11:51pm | In film, pop culture, video | Leave a CommentTags: experimental filmmaking, lady gaga, new BFFs, SRLSY WTF
(Via Kirsten, via Perez Hilton.)
Edit: After posting this, I had a dream that I was a contestant on an MTV reality show entitled “Lady GaGa’s My New BFF.” I can only hope that I have psychic abilities and this was some kind of prophetic dream. For the record, I can’t say that I won (I woke up after one “episode”), but it was totally going in that direction. These short films totally prove that Lady GaGa and I are operating on the same wavelength, anyway – how could she not be my BFF?
The Night “He” Came Home (The State of the Slasher in 2009, Part One)
February 10, 2009 at 5:35pm | In film, pop culture, sociology | Leave a CommentTags: friday the 13th, horror, jason voorhees, reaganomics, slasher film, state of the slasher in 2009, this really should've been my senior thesis
Michael Myers has already been there, Jason Voorhees gets in this week, and Freddy Krueger will be there soon – of course, I’m talking about your local multiplex. The classic slasher is back in a big way, as CHUD.com writer Devin Faraci notes in a recent article. Slasher films, such as the Friday the 13th remake opening this Friday, the 13th – make up a significant amount of recent mainstream horror film production, and are definitely making a killing (pun intended) at the box office. As mentioned in Faraci’s article, as well as in the New York Times, this new Friday the 13th remake (and series reboot) comes on the heels of a series of other slasher remakes, including new versions of three of the sub-genre’s founding films – Black Christmas (2006), Halloween (2007), and Prom Night (2008).
Trailer for Friday the 13th (2009)
While Faraci’s attempt to answer the most often-repeated question about the slasher sub-genre (“What is it that makes slasher films appealing?”) from a fan’s perspective is interesting, it leads him to away from a much more intriguing question – that is, “Why slashers now?” What is it about these mask-wearing, unstoppable killing machines of the Reagan era that resonates so well with horror film spectators in 2009? Why do audiences look to slasher remakes over original horror storylines? And why have these slasher movies so completely replaced the much maligned “torture porn” films – the Saws and Hostels – that ruled the horror universe earlier in the 2000s?
Stay tuned for a detailed investigation of these questions – and in the meantime, don’t go in the woods… alone!
(While you’re waiting for the next installment of this series – or just while you’re waiting for the new Friday the 13th movie – check out The 10 Days of 13 Redux on CHUD – Devin Faraci re-visits and reviews each film in the original Friday the 13th series.)
We’re in the money
January 9, 2009 at 12:36pm | In culture, film, sociology | Leave a CommentTags: 2009, awards, fashion, Hollywood, recession
An article in the New York Times film section asks an interesting question – in light of the deepening recession (today, the Times reported that unemployment has hit a 16-year-high at 7.2%), how should Hollywood present itself in the upcoming awards season? The article cites Hollywood’s “long if not proud history of tone-deaf behavior” in response to national crises – references to Marie Antoinette abound. Opinions (of network executives, fashion designers and pop-culture pundits) differ as to whether the glitz and glamour of the typical Hollywood awards show will soothe or enrage the cash-strapped viewing public. For the time being, at least, Hollywood certainly isn’t pulling out any stops, attempting to reinvigorate flagging awards-show ratings (and, yes – the swag is back, too).
What the article overlooks, however, is that the birth of Hollywood glamour came out of the Great Depression. The Roaring ’20s laid the groundwork, but the Golden Age of Hollywood filmmaking was born out of the worst economic conditions. The Depression marked the highest moment for the star and studio systems, the growth of sound and the birth of color. The 1930s gave us Marlene Dietrich, Claudette Colbert, Clark Gable, Greta Garbo and Katharine Hepburn – as well as the rise of the Western, the musical, the period piece and the horror film. Even Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz – perhaps the two most iconic films of Hollywood spectacle – both came out in 1939, at the tail end of the Depression. With cinema well past the 100-year-mark, maybe this recession will give Hollywood an impetus to go back to the well-crafted spectacle on which it was built. Could the economic crisis take us all back to the era of Busby Berkeley?
Up next – Gold Diggers of 2009. It certainly wouldn’t be the first Hollywood remake this year, or the last. Bring on the good old days!
He’s Not There
December 10, 2007 at 1:16pm | In art, film, music | 1 CommentTags: biopics, bob dylan, cate blanchett, i'm not there, todd haynes
Todd Haynes‘ I’m Not There (2007) has probably garnered most of the attention it has received on pure novelty and curiosity. Ostensibly a biopic about Bob Dylan, the part of “Bob Dylan” is played by six different actors, each portraying a different moment in Dylan’s life and a different attitude – including Cate Blanchett (pictured below).
The most interesting thing about the movie, though, is that Dylan himself is conspicuously, almost entirely absent.
While Blanchett’s “Jude Quinn” most closely resembles the 1960s Dylan of (collective) memory, each incarnation of “Dylan” seems one step removed – a reflection of the myths and legends surrounding Dylan and 1960s-counterculture as a whole, rather than anything “real.” Haynes filters real (or perceived) events of Dylan’s life through a tangle of art-film techniques (nods to Godard and Fellini abound) to comment on the centrality of celebrity and myth in culture; the finished product is much more interesting and multi-dimensional than a conventional biopic – compare the vision of Dylan in I’m Not There to that of Johnny Cash in Walk The Line (2005).
Not to stretch the point too far (especially from a self-confessed ’60s-phile like myself), I’m Not There felt like a bit of an attempt to clear the air on this legendary idea of “the 1960s” that has loomed large over the United States for almost 50 years. By pointing out the gaps between the image of Dylan and his reality, Haynes points out the 1960s – a time when people had the power, when anything was possible, when real revolution was about to happen – might be, like the image of “Bob Dylan” everyone remembers, imagined into existence.
(Edit: In a review of I’m Not There in the latest issue of “Cineaste,” I discovered that Todd Haynes studied Semiotics at Brown University. Go figure.)
Was The 20th Century A Mistake?
October 24, 2007 at 10:31am | In art, culture, film, history, photography | Leave a CommentTags: bffs, dickhead in a good way, henry viii's wives, rad senior citizens, the 20th century, werner herzog
This is the most amazing thing I’ve seen in a while: Iconic Moments of the Twentieth Century by Henry VIII’s Wives. Who are these people and how do I make them (the artists and the rad senior citizens who agreed to participate in their project) my BFFs 4 life????!! (Found thanks to the weirdos over at VVORK.)
Also, Werner Herzog will be speaking for free tonite at the University of Pennsylvania’s Meyerson Hall. The event starts at 5pm; seating is limited. Not really sure what Herzog (who professes to hate the academy, has been quoted as saying, “film is not the art of scholars, but of illiterates,” and is kind of a dickhead in the best way possible) is doing here, but apparently the talk will address the question, Was the 20th Century a Mistake? I don’t know about that, but I’m pretty sure you could make a case for the 21st Century being a mistake, at least thus far.
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
