Monday, April 29, 2013

This Week In Horror - 'The Following,' 'Bates Motel,' 'Hannibal' (4/22-4/28)


Bates Motel
Welcome to This Week In Horror!  In this column I dissect (pun intended) the most popular blood-soaked shows on television.  First there will be a series of mini-recaps outlining the highlights (and low-lights) of each episode that week.  Then comes the ‘Dissection.’
But first, for the inaugural column, an introduction:
Nothing is hotter on television at the moment than horror.  Throughout the years there have been a few shining examples of much-loved horror shows (‘Twin Peaks,’ ‘The X-Files,’ ‘Buffy The Vampire Slayer’), but by and large the genre has been dominated by big screen masked murderers, small screen schlockfests, and much-loved but little-watched cult programs.  Now, horror has finally made the leap to critical and commercial success on television in an unprecedented capacity, invading pretty much every channel.  Undoubtedly the tipping point for this sudden surge in scary stories was the astounding success of AMC’s ‘The Walking Dead,’ which now regularly pulls in more viewers than most network shows -- a feat previously unheard of for cable programming.  It would appear that there’s hardly anyone in the country who doesn’t like watching a zombie’s brains get splattered across the pavement.
The roots of this movement can be traced back to even earlier shows such as ’24’ with its unflinching depiction of brutal torture and ‘Lost’ with its mysterious Others haunting the jungle.  These shows helped prove to modern executives that viewers weren’t only flocking to television for light escapism; they were looking for a release of a different kind, too -- and a little cathartic bloodshed can go a long way.
In addition to ‘The Walking Dead,’ there is HBO’s long-running vampire/werewolf/witch/fairy/shapeshifter/blood/sex/gore-fest ‘True Blood,” Showtime’s beloved serial killer drama ‘Dexter,‘ and FX’s gothic anthology ‘American Horror Story.‘  Even ‘Game Of Thrones’ (HBO) features frightening creatures called White Walkers and their undead army of wights.  The first half of 2013 alone saw the rise of several new terrifying shows that attracted large audiences: ‘The Following’ on FOX, ‘Bates Motel’ on A&E, and ‘Hannibal’ on NBC (as well as ‘Under The Dome,’ which will be premiering on CBS in June).  Let’s examine what the hottest new horror shows have in common, how they’re different, and why people keep subjecting themselves week after week to such atrocities as homicidal cults, incestuous mother/son relationships, and cannibalism.
The FollowingThis week on ‘The Following
For most of its run, ‘The Following’ has exhibited an exemplary balance between genuine chills and fun campiness.  What else would you expect from creator Kevin Williamson, writer of the ‘Scream’ franchise?  Sure, the FBI agents are pretty inept.  Sure, the cult has had a few too many conveniently-placed members.  But overall, the show has been an exciting cat-and-mouse game showcasing Kevin Bacon at his skeletal best.
That being said... This week, ‘The Following’ finally went off the rails.  The FBI exhibited a staggering level of incompetence heretofore unmatched.  Knowing that Joe Carroll and his cult of insane killers were loose in a small suburban town, the agents set up a voluntary shelter for the residents of said town to seek asylum from the cult -- and then didn’t screen or ID any of the people coming in, allowing several innocent townfolk to be slaughtered by the very people they were seeking protection from.  I mean, really?  What did they expect?
The FBI weren’t the only incompetent ones: Joe allowed his wife, Claire, to talk him into untying her hands so she could “open a bottle of wine” -- one episode after she stabbed him.  I’m not sure how it came as a shock to him when she grabbed said wine bottle and smashed him over the head with it.  Then, freed of her bonds, with her homicidal husband unconscious at her feet, instead of ending it once and for all -- she just runs away and leaves him alive -- only to later be recaptured by him, of course.  Come on guys, get it together!
This week on ‘Bates MotelBates Motel-20130103-60.jpg
Things looked much better over on A&E this week, with possibly the best episode yet of ‘Bates Motel,’ which saw one major revelation and one major death.
At first, things were looking up for Norma Bates: last week, her cop boyfriend Zack destroyed the evidence that would have (rightfully) convicted her of murder.  Hooray!  This week, she found out he was a sex slave trafficker.  Boo!  Then, Zack found out Norman was hiding his sex slave in the hotel.  Uh oh!  Then, Norma’s other son Dylan saved them all by shooting Zack in the face.  Hooray!  Then, Norma told Dylan that Norman’s father didn’t die in a tragic falling-off-the-ladder accident -- Norman murdered him, although he doesn’t remember doing it.
HannibalThis week on ‘Hannibal
This week should have been the fourth episode, although it was pulled from the air due to concerns over its ultra-violent nature.  Apparently the episode would have featured guest star Molly Shannon brainwashing children into killing other children.  (Since the pulled episode would have happened so soon after the events in Boston, most people assumed the decision was in response to that, but actually the decision was made a while ago and was more related to the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary.)  Instead, we got the fifth episode, which dealt with the not-violent-at-all topic of a serial killer who peeled the flesh off the backs of his victims to turn them into angels to watch over him while he slept.  Because that’s so much nicer.
It turns out that the serial killer has a brain tumor which has been driving him insane -- and he’s also only killing bad people like rapists -- so he’s kind of a good guy?  The final angel he makes is himself, although how he managed to peel the skin off his own back, fashion the skin into wings, and hoist himself, manacled, to the roof of a barn will forever remain a mystery.
The plot of the cancer-ridden serial killer conveniently helped FBI agent Jack Crawford realize that his own wife has cancer.

Dissection
So. We have one show hitting its low, one show hitting its high, and one show choosing not to air itself for fear of making people upset.
What is so different between events on ‘Bates Motel’ spiraling out of control in a good way versus events on ‘The Following’ spiraling out of control in a bad way?  There’s a fine line between brilliant chaos and just a chaotic mess.
The Following’ is filled with ineptitude on the part of the authorities, so shouldn’t one more act of ineptitude have been par for the course?  To be fair, this is a show where there’s a cult of fifty plus homicidal maniacs wreaking havoc on the nation, responsible for the deaths of dozens of people, and yet the FBI repeatedly sends in one or two agents with no backup to apprehend suspects (usually unsuccessfully).  As we witnessed this past week in real-life Boston, a mere two homicidal maniacs being responsible for the deaths of three people led to a city-wide lockdown, the mobilization of hundreds of police and the relatively swift apprehension (or deaths) of both suspects.  The cult on ‘The Following,’ on the other hand, has remained at large for the better part of the season.
Perhaps it’s the real-world horror we as a country went through this past week that finally made incompetence of these fictional officers unbelievable.  Why aren’t they doing more to protect their citizens?  It’s as illogical as it is infuriating.  Or, you know, perhaps it’s just a case of the straw that broke the camel’s back, and this was just one screw-up too many.
Conversely, the writers on ‘Bates Motel’ use increasing levels of chaos to tighten the screws on their characters, revealing as-yet-unseen depths to their psyches.  As Norma’s world collapses around her and she finds herself uncharacteristically out of control of her own fate, she lashes out at the person closest to her: Norman.  Their oedipal bond is no match for her desperation.  Watching mother and son struggle viciously for control of her car as she raved over her boyfriend’s betrayal was both thrilling and heartbreaking.  Seeing Dylan finally rise to the occasion and put his life at risk to protect his dysfunctional family was surprising and heroic.  And Norma telling Dylan the truth about Norman killing his father was an unexpected revelation.  These events gave the chaos in ‘Bates Motel’ a level of credulity that ‘The Following’ sorely lacked.
While ‘The Following’ and ‘Bates Motel’ were busy toeing the line of plausibility, ‘Hannibal’ was toeing a line of a different sort: the line between kid-on-kid violence (not acceptable for television) and skinning the flesh off rapists’ backs (acceptable for television).
I understand that certain topics may be more sensitive by nature than others, and I understand that there are many people in this country who may not want to watch an episode about children being murdered when the events of Sandy Hook are still so fresh in our memories.  But is it really the job of a show about a cannibal to be “sensitive?”  Aren’t there always going to be some people who are offended by any storyline you tackle?  Shouldn’t we let audiences decide what is or isn’t too much by putting a disclaimer before the episode warning of its content?  Isn’t seeing horrific real-life events reflected in the arts (however vaguely) an essential part of the healing process?  After all, in the episode of ‘Hannibal’ that was aired, it wasn’t until Jack Crawford saw his own wife’s condition reflected in the horrific events he was witnessing that he could begin to repair his broken relationship with her.  How interesting that they chose to cut an episode for being too horrifying, and replaced it with an episode that attempted to teach the viewer the potential value of witnessing horrific acts, and the growth that can stem from such experiences.

What did you think of this week in horror?  Were you turned off by the cartoonish events of ‘The Following,’ or are you still along for the bloody ride?  Did you find the twists of ‘Bates Motel’ compelling or are you hoping for more?  Would you have wanted to see the cut episode of ‘Hannibal’ or do you think they made the right decision in skipping it?  And which of these new terrifying shows do you think is the best?  The scariest?  Sound off in the comments!

Friday, February 8, 2013

AMOUR: The most depressing movie about love ever made

I mean, just look at that face.
Here's the other side of that heart-rending image.


Oof.  If you're gonna see this little gem of a Best Picture nominee, it's best to be prepared.  What's the most important thing you need to know about AMOUR?  It's French.







Just kidding.  (Sort of...French films do have a tendency to be numbingly sad.)  What you really should know is there's not much of a plot to be had here.  To give you a bare-bones idea without giving anything away, Georges and Anne are a loving elderly couple living their golden years together, going to concerts and cooking each other meals, when suddenly Anne suffers a stroke.  As her health continues to decline, Georges must struggle to care for his ailing wife.


If this sound like the kind of movie that gets your blood pumping, then...you're weird and must take delight in the misery of others.  There's absolutely nothing enjoyable about sitting through AMOUR.  Nothing.  Other than the knowledge that you're witnessing some incredible performances, the experience is painful, sad, infuriating, excruciating and soul-crushing.  The movie clocks in at a totally reasonable 2 hours and and 7 minutes -- yet manages to feel like a grueling six-hour marathon.

Now, I've seen some depressing movies in my time, including most of the movies on this list, to which I would add HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG, MYSTIC RIVER and IRREVERSIBLE (which is also -- you guessed it -- French!).  In most downer movies there's a cathartic sense of schadenfreude -- at least I didn't have to be euthanized after breaking my spine while boxing.  But AMOUR is different.  Every single one of us is (hopefully) going to grow old and our health will start to deteriorate.  It's the inevitability of what we're watching unfold that is so affecting about this film.  There's absolutely nothing Georges can do to get his beloved Anne back.  And watching him arrive at that realization is utterly heartbreaking.

Emmanuelle Riva (who plays Anne) is, at 86, the oldest Best Actress nominee in Oscar history.  It's a recognition well-deserved, but Jean-Louis Trintignant (who plays Georges) is no less moving.  His is not a one-note sadness; his feelings towards his ailing wife fluctuate between determination, resignation, nostalgia, stubbornness, regret, and sometimes (and most interestingly) anger.  How dare she be leaving him like this?  It's a fascinating reaction and makes the movie feel all the more real.

If you're an Oscar devotee like myself (or just a fan of feeling miserable), then this is a must-see film.  However, if you're looking for a fun Valentine's date movie, I'd maybe steer clear of this one, despite it's misleadingly lovely-sounding title.


What's it nominated for? 5: Best Picture; Best Director (Michael Haneke); Best Actress (Emmanuelle Riva); Best Original Screenplay; Best Foreign Film

Will it win?  Not a chance of winning the Big One -- its honor is being recognized in the category at all.  However, its presence in the Best Picture race at all means its win for Best Foreign Film is all but guaranteed.