Book Review: "Shock Value" by Jason Zinoman

Right off the bat: To all the horror-loving people reading this, you have to read this book! No excuses. I honestly haven't read that many books about films in general, but reading Shock Value taught me something. You owe it to yourself as a horror fan to not only learn from and study the films themselves but to also verse yourself in the entire story behind some of the most influential ones in order to fully appreciate what they mean and why they are so important. And Jason Zinoman does all this and more in this fantastic book that is a must read for anyone who considers horror to be a part of their life.

Thus begineth the review....

Ask horror fans what the most influential era or decade for American horror films was and most of them would say the 1970s. It was the beginning of a new age for the horror film when the classic monsters like Frankenstein and the Wolf Man were replaced with a new kind of monster - people. Real horror can occur next door or in our own homes and be perpetrated by any of the people we meet in the world. A crop of young directors were able to tap into this sad new reality and hit American audiences with their take on horror films - the likes of which had never been seen before.

Author Jason Zinoman brilliantly explores this cutting edge era of filmmaking in his book Shock Value. He singles out the few independent directors and filmmakers and their classic influential films to explain how they brought in the age of New Horror, replacing the campy monster movies of previous decades. The big names are all here: Polanski, Carpenter, Romero, Craven, Hooper, etc. Despite, in some cases, being vehemently attacked by critics and audiences for what they had created, these directors and their films truly stood for something important - saying things that needed to be said and showing people horror in an honest and truthful way. With these films, horror suddenly became art while still having the power to scare the crap out of audiences.

Each chapter is a broad and at the same time in-depth overview of specific movies from the era, starting with Rosemary's Baby and ending with Alien. Zinoman has done his research here with tons of new interviews and stories about how movies like The Last House on the Left, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and The Exorcist came to be. I thought I knew most of the backstory to these films already but Zinoman not only explores the influences of the filmmakers but also explains how low-budget indies became national phenomena and are still talked about to this day. 

This is what stood out the most to me about Zinoman's book was the insane detail he puts into the background of the films and their creators. Some of the stories I've heard before, as they are part of the iconography of certain films, but a lot of it was complete news to me. And to me, these are important stories to know to fully appreciate these movies especially if you weren't lucky enough to be around in the 70s like me. 

It's amazing to think how some of those classic scenes and the way we think about these classic films could have been just happy accidents. The cultural and political implications of Night of the Living Dead were unknown to director George Romero until it was pointed out by people seeing it for the first time. Who knew that a love for actress Marilyn Burns and a Mafia made man were elements that helped get The Texas Chain Saw Massacre into theaters? And was it essentially a good thing that the relationship between John Carpenter and Dan O'Bannon fizzled out because they eventually both went on to make two of the biggest movies of the decade?

Sidenote: The whole discussion of O'Bannon and Carpenter was a complete shocker to me. Get this: I didn't even know who O'Bannon was and what his contribution to horror was. The most interesting story out of the whole book to me was how O'Bannon came up with the alien-bursting-through-chest scene from Alien and how it was related to a very painful stomach condition he had through most of his life and is what ultimately killed him. A simple scare like that, influenced by the creator's own life, is just the kind of thing you need in a horror film to touch a nerve with everybody who watches it.

More than just a brilliant researcher, Zinoman also has some fabulous insights of his own about 70s horror. These were the most enjoyable parts of the book for me as a book about simple facts would have been boring. He gives you the lowdown on the who, what, where, why and how, and then he'll hit you with the most amazing analyses, thinking about these movies in ways that I've never thought of before.

For instance, I always thought that Psycho was considered as the birth of the modern slasher but Zinoman gives a strong argument against that, pointing out Psycho's only flaw. Unbeknownst to me, many people did not like the ending to Psycho when the doctor explains Norman's psychosis. Remember: "It's lot scarier when there's no motive." Zinoman ties this into his work by pointing out that aside from fairy tale monsters being replaced by people as the villains in horror movies, many of the villains had no real motive and were non-discriminatory killers. And that element from New Horror is still used in today's films.

While I think Zinoman explores the first two points of the subtitle for his book well - how these movies shocked audiences and educated people about how influential independent movies could be compared to Hollywood movies - he seems to skip over the last part about "inventing modern horror" too quickly. His mention of modern horror movies in the last chapter is a little hurried, and I didn't really get a clear idea of what his take on modern horror was, or how it relates to or has been influenced by 70s horror.

In fact, Zinoman's mention of only a few modern horror like Hostel, Saw, Scream, etc. seems dismissive of these films and doesn't talk about how horror has changed yet again in the new millennium. He seems to clump them all into the "torture porn" category (a phrase that is completely ridiculous and inaccurate for most of the movies it is applied to) or despair over the remakes of these 70s movies, which is unfair.

There's also a great "where are they now" chapter talking about each of the major players mentioned in the novel. Zinoman talks about the successes and failures they had after their most popular movies came out and what they've been doing up to this point. 

This book was truly a pleasure to read in every way. It was fascinating and funny, informative and insightful. I was very lucky to have been contacted to do this review and get an advanced copy (it's available now, but it was advanced when I got it) otherwise I might never have found this book. It is definitely a must-read for any fan of the genre, whether you think you know it all about these movies or not. I bet even the most die-hard fanboy or girl will find some new fact or story and will learn to love their favorite movies even more. So I salute you, Jason Zinoman, for opening up my eyes and my mind to look at this fantastic era of American horror in a fresh new way.

Shock Value: How a Few Eccentric Outsiders Gave Us Nightmares, Conquered Hollywood, and Invented Modern Horror is available now! Pick up your copy and be sure to read the other reviews on the book tour going on now.

Final Girl Film Club: The Funhouse (1981)

Much like Stacie Ponder over at Final Girl, I had an inkling to watch The Funhouse a while ago myself. Some gracious individual had uploaded it on YouTube (not sure if it's still available). So if you have that same deep-down urge and wish to participate in the Final Girl's Film Club pick, you might try checking there first because it's not available for instant streaming on NetFlix (BOO!).

First of all, WOW. Look at that poster. I mean... ew? This little Tobe Hooper gem was actually a favorite of mine and my sister's when we were younger gals and loved these campy little horror movies together.

Wanna talk plot?: Four teens on a double date at the town carnival decide to do the dumbest thing ever and spend the night in the funhouse. They witness a mutant killing the skeazy fortune teller lady, steal the carnies' money, and are then stalked through the funhouse as mutant's daddy goes after them to cover up Junior's crime.

The title sequence sets up the film great, with gleefully ominous music playing over images of the strange animatronic figures that live in the funhouse. Tone is going to be a bit creepy and but obviously a helluva good time.

Is she scarier than the mutant? Magic 8 ball says it is possible.

The movie starts off with a pretty ballsy Halloween/Psycho rip-off when a pretty, young girl is showering and a boy in a mask (with true Halloween POV vision through the eyeholes) stalks her and then stabs her in the shower. But haha! Mask Boy is actually Shower Girl's younger brother and the knife is fake. When Shower Girl goes to the carnival with her friends and a date named Buzz (??), a semi-double storyline starts when Mask Boy sneaks out of the house to go to the carnival. I thought maybe they would up the suspense by having the boy trapped in the funhouse, too, with his sister having to save him and blah, blah, blah. But nope, they missed that boat. Instead, his part in the film fizzles out halfway through and you wonder why he was even there at all.

Whatever town these kids live in is apparently filled with random crazies, and I'm not just talking about the carnies. There's a dirty homeless guy wandering about the carnival; a guy who sees Mask Boy walking by the side of the road first offers him a ride and then pulls a gun on him (Whuh the hell?); and another seemingly homeless bag lady torments the two girls in the bathroom while they are talking about sex, annoyingly repeating "God is watching you!" at them. The message: crazy people giving you warnings ALWAYS means that something bad is going to happen soon.

Yup, I believed it.

Anyway, the scenes at the carnival are almost kinda better than when all the horror stuff starts. For some reason, I've always loved the magic trick scene. It's a short little tidbit, but the guy playing the magician is pretty good and I like the scare moment as he performs 'The Impaler' trick, giving a little history of Vlad the Impaler beforehand. I actually believed it for a moment that he really impaled her. Silly me.




The dancing girls and mutated animals make me wonder if I wish they still had stuff like this at county carnivals.

Um, no. Not really.

Anywho, one big question I have is: Just how freaking elaborate is this darn funhouse? Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought these things were made to be all mobile and stuff, and yet it has the main area where the ride is, a level underneath (the room where Madame Zena was killed), and yet another area underneath that with all the hydraulics and stuff. And still there's not a single way out that our heros and heroines can find. That is until the end, when Shower Girl just freaking walks out of the FRONT ENTRANCE. Shenanigans, I say, more shenanigans!

Another question: Why are there real weapons used in the funhouse attraction? Seriously, the kids grab axes and shit off of the dummies to fight the carnies, and I was thinking, "You morons, those aren't real!" Oh, wait. They are. Buzz hits the dork on the head with an axe (chill out, he was already dead) and the mutant's father gets impaled on what really should have been a fake sword. Sorry, another minor flaw in the movie but I couldn't help pointing it out.

The Funhouse is the ultimate "carnies are freaks" movie, and since the carnies of the world don't seem to be lining up to defend themselves, I have to believe that the stereotype is true. Otherwise, life just isn't fun anymore. The fortune teller-killer mutant is indeed quite hideous. Pretty nice makeup effects, although he seems to be almost all mutant without any hint of true human features. Makes it hard to see him as anything more than an animal, even when carnie daddy is calling him a freak and saying that he can't stand the sound of his voice. But don't worry - as daddy says, he's harmless... once he's been fed.

The film's climax is actually kind of anti-climactic. Shower Girl squares off with Mutant in the funhouse's hydraulics room. She doesn't actually fight him or anything, just stands there and shakes and screams, while Mutant manages to electrocute HIMSELF, get caught up in the overhead chains, and get himself squished between a pair of interlocking gears. During his overlong death scene, about a billion blindess-inducing blue sparks are exploding behind him. Only mildly distracting.

All in all, The Funhouse has a unique story and setting (that would both be completely ripped off by the movie Dark Ride) and some amazing character actors - Madame Zena and Mutant's Father are the BEST - giving memorable performances. The gore is minimal, if not non-existent, and the death scenes are really quite boring, but it's more the freakiness of the carnie family and their mindset that is the scary part.

Honestly, was anyone else freaked out by the fat lady statue on top of the funhouse? She laughs and turns her head and is just royally creepy. She even mocks Shower Girl at the end when she's escaped the funhouse. What a meanie!

Edit: Okay, I just read through what I wrote and it sounds like I'm criticizing the movie a lot. I really do like it and think it's a fantastic little piece of 80s goodness (with a slight 70s feel, maybe?). This is just the first time I've looked at it with a more critical eye. While it's fun and creepy, there's a few minor places where it falters.

Remakes of classic horror films

This is going to be my weigh-in on the onslaught of remakes of classic horror films. A Nightmare on Elm Street just came out not too long ago, and it sucked. It sucked really hard. I Spit on Your Grave is coming out soon, and it's probably going to suck. Friday the 13th was probably the biggest suck of all remakes. No, wait, that award goes to One Missed Call... which was actually a remake of an Asian horror movie, which is a category all it's own. Let's stick to remakes of classic American films.

I have seen the remakes and the originals and I have a top three of the best remakes (thus far... 'cause Gosh knows there are going to be more). The best remake is not necessarily my favorite, but we'll get to that later.

The number one best horror remake is The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. In terms of sticking to the original storyline but making improvements where need be; characters; actors; and directing, TCM 2003 was a huge success. As much as you may love that classic original first film by Poltergeist-man himself, Tobe Hooper, you have to admit that the film is seriously flawed. It's a low-budget movie from the 70s with actors that are still unknown to this day. Yes, it has some creepy and gross-out moments (Grandpa sucking the blood off of Marilyn Burns finger?????? So wrong.) and the whole concept of this whacked-out cannibal family and a giant 'tard with a chainsaw is incredibly disturbing, but it doesn't really hold up well over time.

The remake improved the TCM legacy in so many ways. First of all, the characters. The most annoying film character I can think of right now is Franklin (the guy in the wheelchair) from the original. So they totally cut him out. Yea! Now add in Jessica Biel, a hippy chick, and three modestly good-looking guys and you've got a pretty good cast. There's no overly blatant stereotypes among the kids, no bitch or slut, or douchebag dude that the girls seem to love even if he is a douchebag... just some normal people in their 20s. They got good actors who took the film and their characters seriously and really turned it out.

The best and most memorable characters, though, are of course the members of the Hewitt family. In the original they were all kind of skanky, dirty, back woods dudes. They gave these new characters some real thought and got great actors, again, to play these roles. R Lee Ermy as the sheriff is the most memorable. An awesome character actor who really gets into his roles (maybe a little too much) and makes them special. Uncle Monty, no legs man in the wheelchair, is perhaps not as well developed, we just see him as a pervert because he keeps grabbing Jessica Biel's ass while she's helping him into his wheelchair. I don't know who the actress is who played the mother but she was absolutely fantastic. An old crone, the HBIC, just as disgusting and depraved as the men in her family. She can hold her own. Leatherface's character didn't really change much, but he didn't need to. Big guy, mind of a child, but knows how to work his power tools. You feel sorry for him, maybe, but not really when he's chasing you around the house with a chainsaw.

The action and chase sequences were awesome (although we didn't get a reboot of the famous dinner table scene until Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning), with great set design and locations. The Hewitt house, its basement, the slaughterhouse, the crazy neighbors' trailer... they all give you a great sense of time and place in the context of the film. Set design was especially helpful in getting the real feel of the film. The whole movie is just DIRTY. Dirty characters, dirty deeds, dirty houses. The people in the movie are sweaty and dirty like they haven't showered in a few weeks. The house and other sets are dirty, cluttered, dripping with water, covered in dried blood - ook! I just wanted to jump into the movie and hose down everybody and everything I could touch.

They totally upped the gore and violence and I loooooove that. The movie can't be called Texas Chainsaw Massacre and not have someone getting their leg cut off or getting split down the crotch with a chainsaw. So thank you, filmmakers, for that. You know what we want.

All in all, great improvement on character, great actions, great gore and violence. Awesome horror film, that is just as good as, if not better than, the original.

The number 2 remake is coming next blog.