Posts

Showing posts with the label IT FOLLOWS

Body-text fonts, pt. 47: Agmena

The group has been reading Being Mortal: Medicine and What Happens in the End – hardly the last word on dying, but a good starting-point for preparing for one’s own death and thinking how to help those whose turn it is to die.

The best thing about reading this book – and I mean this as a sincere compliment, not in any backhanded way – was that it prompted me to finally read “The Death of Ivan Ilych.”


It, it, it … the passage is like that horror flick – that great mortality parable – It Follows.

The typeface sampled above is Jovica Veljovič’s Agmena. Tolstoy’s story serves as the epilogue of the anthology Leading Lives that Matter.

Movies of the 2010s

The honor roll, continued.
  1. Tabloid (dir. Errol Morris, 2010)
  2. We Are the Best! (dir. Lukas Moodysson, 2013)
  3. L’illusionniste (dir. Sylvain Chomet, 2010)
  4. Another Year (dir. Mike Leigh, 2010)
  5. It Follows (dir. David Robert Mitchell, 2014)
  6. Bridesmaids (dir. Paul Feig, 2011)
  7. Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol (dir. Brad Bird, 2011)
  8. Hail, Caesar! (dir. Ethan and Joel Coen, 2016)
  9. The Trip (dir. Michael Winterbottom, 2010)
  10. 56 Up (dir. Michael Apted, 2012)
  11. Queen & Country (dir. John Boorman, 2014)
Several of these movies were released in the previous decade, in the last weeks of 2010. So, clarification is in order.

To qualify for the list, a movie needs to have ended its first run in U.S. theaters no earlier than January 1, 2011. This is a fair criterion because I wouldn’t have been able to see several of these movies as soon as they appeared in theaters, in 2010.

Besides, if I hadn’t adopted this criterion, this would’ve been a sorry list indeed. Like the previous list, this one makes it clear that I stopped paying attention to art and culture halfway through the decade. I guess I no longer view the world with wide-eyed wonder.

Or maybe the new stuff really does lack freshness. A common complaint, nowadays, is that too many movies are sequels or prequels or adaptations. As it happens, this list includes three sequels: Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, 56 Up, and Queen & Country. And the first two of these would go on to have sequels of their own (as would The Trip).

But the three sequels on the list are pretty darn cool. Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol revitalized an ailing franchise. Queen & Country, which seems never to have held much commercial promise, is a self-contained appendix to Hope and Glory, which was a minor hit in 1988; its very existence is miraculous.

56 Up is, of course, a part of the greatest string of sequels in documentary history; that they are sequels is their whole point.

Tabloid is not a sequel, but it’s quintessential Errol Morris. This means that it’s what 75% of those true crime docs on Netflix are trying to copy. They are Tabloid’s spiritual sequels, or they would be, if they were good enough.

Tabloid is my no. 1. I thought long and hard about making either We Are the Best! or L’illusionniste no. 1. They may as well all be tied.

The Trip and 56 Up first appeared on British TV.

1996, the best year in movie history, pt. 8: Scream

Tonight is Halloween, and so this month’s essay is about Dead Teenager movies in general and Scream in particular.

Though it came out in 1996, Scream seems to belong to the later 1990s or early 2000s. Surely this is because of its many sequels, imitators, and parodies.

I’m not an authority on Dead Teenager movies. I haven’t seen very many of them, and my understanding of the genre must be old-fashioned. Nevertheless, I’m going to present my view of its artistic merits and limitations.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

The theme of a Dead Teenager movie is punishment. Gruesome death is meted out for misdeeds.

Misdeeds in a Dead Teenager movie may be terrible or innocuous. If they’re innocuous, then the punishment is for sin as such.

Thus, a Dead Teenager movie is a like a morality play.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

This interpretive framework is more flexible than may initially appear. Consider that it accommodates:

(1) The terrifying It Follows – the best Dead Teenager movie of recent years – although, in that movie, there’s no singular punisher. (It Follows is more like Robert Louis Stevenson’s “The Bottle Imp” than like a paradigmatic “slasher” tale, e.g., Agatha Christie’s And Then There Were None.)

(2) The Virgin Suicides, in which teenagers punish their parents by punishing themselves.

Scream follows the traditional “slasher” pattern.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

The theme of punishing teenagers is especially urgent to those obsessed with the niceties of teen conduct – I mean, the teenagers themselves. It’s less important to those who’ve outgrown that stage of life. We forgive a person’s youthful acts once we notice that he or she has learned to behave like an adult.

Whenever I view the scything down of a movie teenager, I lament the prematurity of it. I regret that this person never will have the chance to outgrow the teen stage. To my adult eyes, it matters little whether, in that moment, the teenager deserves to be butchered with a knife (or crushed by a garage door, or impaled upon a fence).

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

So, I think that the Dead Teenager genre is, at best, compelling to a teenaged (or teen-minded) audience – whose members probably shouldn’t be watching the sex and violence anyway. And if a certain movie is no better than a fine specimen of that genre – which is the usual assessment of Scream – then it’s subject to the same criticism.

All right: I’ve lowered Scream down into a hole. Now, I’ll try to lift it out.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Scream is thought to have occassioned a paradigm shift for the Dead Teenager genre. It’s often noted that the teenagers in Scream are well-versed in horror-movie conventions. They’ve all seen Halloween, Friday the 13th, and A Nightmare on Elm Street countless times. Thus they know which characters in their own social circle “deserve” to be killed and which “deserve” to be spared.

That is, unlike their cinematic forerunners, they’re able to apply the earlier movies’ lessons to their own lives.

(The guru in Scream who articulates much of the horror-movie “wisdom” is a geeky video store clerk. But the other characters share his worldview. All judge their lives by the same horror-movie laws.)

Ever since Scream was released, movies have depicted teenagers as living, breathing encyclopedias of popular culture. And this depiction is accurate. I don’t know to what extent Scream helped to make teenagers this way; maybe it just documented something already in full bloom. Indisputably, though, other movies followed Scream in depicting teenagers as culturally hyperaware.

Scream is hardly the first relentlessly allusive screenwork. Other examples from the same decade include The Simpsons and the movies of Quentin Tarantino. In those works, however, the allusiveness is ornamental (or else it’s the whole point, which makes the work not much different from a quiz show). Scream’s allusiveness has a more interesting purpose. Its teenagers cite previous horror movies in the manner of Puritans citing the Bible, as if those movies were sources of practical wisdom. Pop culture and, especially, recent horror movies are what make up these teenagers’ canon.

And this is the crucial fact that makes Scream more than an exercise in a largely irrelevant genre. Scream is a commentary on the flaw that defines teenaged immaturity, which is this:

Teenagers, despite their lack of experience, are supremely confident in the “wisdom” they glean from the culture in their immediate vicinity.

This flaw is imperceptible to teenagers. Only adults can see it.

Why do the teenagers in Scream kill and die?

Because horror movies tell them to.

Why do they obey the horror movies?

Because they haven’t lived long enough to acquire wisdom anywhere else (and, at this stage, their parents seem useless to them as sources of wisdom).

Nor, in their youthful zeal, are the teenagers able to question whether horror movies contain all the wisdom there is.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

One character in Scream is not like the others. This is Dewey (David Arquette), the twenty-four-year-old deputy sheriff. Dewey is shy and self-effacing. He’s no genius. He makes mistakes. He’s barely an adult, as he repeatedly points out.

But compared to the teenagers, he’s a model of clear-headedness.

Another character – Casey Becker, played by Drew Barrymore – is a cutie-pie brimming with teenaged zest.


A lesser Dead Teenager movie would have made Casey its heroine. But, as we all know, Scream disposes of her after just one scene.

Closing credits (2017)

Zero degrees, Fahrenheit. “Feels like −11°,” says the Weather Channel. Plenty snowy, too.

No heat in the church building, so tomorrow’s service is canceled. I’m glad Karin gets two full days off (the 31st and the 1st).

And so ends 2017. This is my hundredth entry of the year.

For providing material to discuss, I wish to thank:

Karin.

The kitties, Jasper and Ziva.

All the soccer players.

The weather.

Kazuo Ishiguro.

Bertrand Russell.

Russell (the dog).

My other family members.

My tutees.

The LimeBikes of South Bend.

The fire department of South Bend, for turning us out of our first marital dwelling. (That building has been demolished. There’s a vacant lot where once was so much love.)

The church camp.

President Lenín Moreno.

President Donald Trumpie.

ProQuest, for storing many dissertations.

The State of Wisconsin.

Brianna and other in-laws.

The Bee Gees, for singing “Fanny.”

The Isle of Man.

Wilkie Collins.

Flashman.

The Irish. I didn’t blog about them, but they figured prominently in what I read and watched on TV. A nod, also, to the Scottish (it goes without saying that I was obsessed with the English and the Australians). I wonder if 2018 will be the year of the Russians.

I hardly saw any new movies. The most I did was to catch up on the offerings of the last decade. Two standouts were It Follows (2014) and Man on Wire (2008). Tonight I saw Nerve (2016), which was a cut above most of what gets released nowadays. (It strikes me that all three of these movies supply a good dose of existential dread.) I did watch a lot of TV. I spent many happy hours immersed in Broadchurch, Midsomer Murders, and Shetland – British crime shows – and in Rake, which is about lawyers and politicians in New South Wales. (I was transfixed, if not happy, watching The Fall, another British crime show.) Of these, I urge everyone to try out Rake; as one reviewer puts it, beneath its farcicality it’s about how to be good. Man on Wire I also unreservedly recommend. It’s about how sometimes a person’s calling has nothing to do with being good, but with doing one beautiful and useless thing.

Good night!