"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left. No reason, no conscience, no understanding, even the most rudimentary sense of life or death,of good or evil, right or wrong. I met this six year old child with this blind, pale, emotionless face, and the blackest eyes, the devil's eyes. I spent eight years trying to reach him and then another seven trying to keep him locked up because I realized that what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply evil. " - Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasence) Halloween.
Some time ago, my father told me a story of a classmate of his in high school who seemed as average, as "normal," as everyone else. One day this classmate went to his English teacher's house and knocked on the door. When she answered, he took the hammer he had brought with him and beat her to death. He was arrested, convicted and locked away. Decades later he was released and one day, by chance, my father recognized him on the sidewalk, leaning against a building, unkempt and dirty, living on the streets. He recognized my father as well. To my amazement upon first hearing the story, my father told me he spoke to him, briefly. "What did you say?" I asked. "I asked him why he did it?" he said. "What did he say?" "He said, 'I don't know, just felt like it.'"
Horror movies have a dizzying cast of characters, from vampires, re-animated monsters and werewolves to zombies, demons and poltergeists. But it is the cold-blooded killer, the remorseless unblinking murderer that has always instilled the most fear in the real world. When one leaves the theatre after seeing a vampire movie, one may be spooked or jumpy but there is no real fear of an undead parasite actually materializing and sucking your blood. But the killer, the mad killer... that's real. That actually exists.
It's also the only sub-genre of Horror that exists in other genres as well with any regularity. Ghosts and ghouls and Frankenstein's monster are used in comedy from Ghostbusters to Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein but even then they exist as their own subset of the genre, the Horror Comedy. But mad or remorseless killers are commonplace in Noir (Kiss of Death), Gangster Films (goodfellas), Police Procedurals (Zodiac), Drama (In the Bedroom) and in one of the most inventive crossovers ever, Science Fiction (HAL 9000 in 2001: A Space Odyssey). The killer, the psychopath, the enraged lunatic - they're the most frightening characters horror has to offer because they are us. And we are them.
In No Country for Old Men Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) offers a more introspective version of Dr. Loomis' original statement from Halloween:
"There was this boy I sent to the electric chair at Huntsville here a while back. My arrest and my testimony. He killed a fourteen-year-old girl. Papers said it was a crime of passion but he told me there wasn't any passion to it. Told me that he'd been 
planning to kill somebody for about as long as he could remember. Said that if they turned him out he'd do it again. Said he knew he was going to hell. 'Be there in about fifteen minutes.' I don't know what to make of that. I surely don't. The crime you see now, it's hard to even take its measure. It's not that I'm afraid of it. I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job. But, I don't want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don't understand. A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He'd have to say, 'O.K., I'll be part of this world.'"
No Country for Old Men isn't a horror movie but it does have a remorseless killer and a character, in Sheriff Bell, who doesn't want to walk into something he doesn't understand. Few people do. Perhaps that's why the killer sub-genre of Horror has become so popular. Because people want to understand, people want to know why evil exists, people want to protect themselves and their loved ones against the horrors that await them in the real world. Perhaps for some it is simply the vicarious thrill of watching the act done at a safe distance. But that vicarious thrill could still be an attempt to understand on a different level. To understand the demons of one's self. In the end, it's up to the viewer to decide because in reality there are scant few answers.
I asked my father if he was afraid to talk with his old classmate. He said no. He had no fear of him and didn't shy away from asking him why he had done it. In fact, it was the first thing that came out of my father's mouth. He'd always wanted to know. Was the answer satisfactory? That depends on how you look at it. Would "she failed me on a test" have provided any fulfillment or only created more questions? I asked my father what his reaction was to the answer he received . He said he stared, slightly bewildered, and said, "Okay." He gave him some money and never saw him again.
Most of us will never have the opportunity to ask a killer why they did it and most likely, as in my father's case, no reasonable answers would be provided besides. Horror allows us to examine them from a distance, safely and comfortably. But once we leave the theatre we don't leave the characters behind. Dracula and the Wolfman exist only in the movies but the mad killer exists in our world as well. And that makes the mad slasher, the remorseless killer, the most horrifying character of them all. Pure and simple.
38 comments:
Phenomenal. Just absolutely stunning.
I wish I had something more constructive to say, but wow.
I went to high school with a guy who later became a serial killer. I don't know what his ultimate tally of victims is - did he even know? - but he was one of those bland, faded into the wallpaper types. He was a reedy, insignificant type who grew fat on Death Row until he finally, half a generation after the fact, went to his reward. All that pain, all that horror, and all I can do is shrug. Well... that happened.
I don't have much interest in serial murderers onscreen or off but I love the characters who try to contextualize them. That's a brilliant pairing of Sam Loomis and Ed Bell and I enjoyed hearing their testimony because they are polar opposites in their approach to the horror. If you take the Halloween movies as a whole, you see that Loomis is ultimately consumed by the evil he tried to stop, while Ed Bell did the sensible (if frustrating to us) thing of walking away.
That is truly a stunning story. I'm not sure I would have the guts to do something like that, but I do know that my father thought Murder, Inc. guys were cool. I thought he was dead wrong, and I still do.
I don't believe in much in this world, but I do believe that evil exists. It is truly scary to watch i on a screen; I often have to turn the movie off (for example, Young Torless). I don't want that level of terror in my life.
Count von Count - "phenomenal" is constructive enough for me. I'm glad you enjoyed the piece so much and thank you.
Arbo, I do agree that the mad killer is my least favorite in the Horror menagerie because it is not specific to the genre. The exploration of the mad killer is often done better outside the genre in my opinion with most genre examples preferring the Friday the 13th model over the Psycho model. With no Sam Loomis present a Jason Voorhees is just an abstract succession of mutilations. And as you said of your classmate, you have your Baldwin moment and move on. What else can be said?
In the end, Bell understands that, as he's told, "you can't stop what's coming." And so walks away. Is that the sensible thing? Probably. But is it the right thing? I don't know. I don't understand what happens with someone's brain chemistry that makes them kill without remorse. I grab moths in my hand (they're pretty easy to catch) and release them outside rather than kill them. So clearly I'll never understand. I guess we need the Sam Loomises and the Ed Bells to balance the scales.
Marilyn - Evil presented in a casual way is frightening to me. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer for instance, which I covered last October, has less gore and violence than most slasher or mad killer flicks but presents its subject matter so matter of factly that I find it much more disturbing.
I've never been a Henry Hill type who finds gangsters cool. I find them when well written and well presented interesting but never cool. The characters of goodfellas interest me but I think they're all a bunch of worthless losers and schmucks. When they speak of non-gangster citizens that way I just laugh at the irony. Look how completely you've isolated yourself and taken away your own freedom by joining this fraternity of murder. What a bunch of morons. Why would you want that level of violence, of evil, of terror in your life? I agree with you, no thanks.
One of the best documentaries I ever saw (reviewed on FonF) is Excellent Cadavers, apparently an Italian term for righteous martyrs. Two prosecutors who were actually taking down the Mafia in Sicily were double-crossed by the president of Italy, who was in the Mafia's pocket, and murdered. It was perhaps the most heartbreaking film I ever saw.
Honor and greed are more important to the Mafiosi than community.
Honor and greed are more important to the Mafiosi than community.
But not necessarily in that order. When honor becomes inconvenient, it also becomes disposable. Like patriotism, piety and virtue. That's what makes the flag-waving of most political candidates so repugnant to this proud American.
Sorry for all the fragments.
Blind loyalty has no honor as Excellent Cadavers sounds like it shows although I haven't seen it. The Mafia speaks highly of loyalty and honor but to me it's no different from Nationalism. One of the classic jingoistic statements of all time for me, one that is taught in school and held up as an ideal for American heroism, is "My country, may she always be right; But my country right or wrong."
I hate that sentiment. I am loyal to my family but if I were to discover tomorrow that my parents, brother and sister were all a part of a secret cabal that believed in the extermination of all non-White Protestants my loyalty would immediately evaporate into thin air. I hate the idea of unwavering support for anything. It eliminates questioning, examination and critical thinking.
On Wikipedia they correct the quote in this passage: "Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!" This toast is often misquoted as "My country, right or wrong!" and then attacked as a straw man by those who believe it to be an enduring and official statement of US foreign policy.
The original statement is a little easier to take because it leaves room for saying, "My country has acted in the wrong and since it is my country, rather than abandon it I will fight to put it back on the right path and correct those wrongs." But still, it contains a certain level of vague creepiness.
In googling it I found this conversation from a chat room:
1st user: I stand by this with all my heart.
2nd User: It's good be be among a fellow patriot. It saddens me to see such an upswelling of these American Haters in our midsts. Most of these people, I'll wager, have never lived elsewhere and are simply ignorant of what truly awesome this opportunities this country provides.
1st User: I agree with what you said. Liberals HATE that kind of statement, however.
2nd User: I thank God every day I was born an American.
Those kinds of people both frighten and anger me. Just because a country allows for great opportunity does not mean it can do no wrong and when it does do wrong IT IS PATRIOTIC to question it. Patriotism isn't the blind support of the government or its policies but the fight for its values and ideals. The President is sworn in to "uphold and defend the Constitution" not the country. Fighting for the freedoms and liberties outlined in the Constitution means sometimes you are at odds with the leaders of your country who view it with contempt. These so called "patriots" have it ass-backwards. They believe supporting the country, not the Constitution, is what makes one a patriot. They believe speaking out against your country makes you a traitor. They understand America to be a flag pin for your lapel, not a set of ideas.
The way Mafiosi define honor is a little different from the way we think of it. It's the idea of loyalty to a boss, not boss to the foot soldiers. It's really kind of medieval, like a knight pledged to a king. One thing that really struck me in Excellent Cadavers was that during the maxitrials, a family head, Tommaso Bruscetta, who had escaped to Brazil was brought in to testify against other family members - he did so because they slaughtered his entire family and extended family. When he walked into the courthouse, the Mafiosi who were locked in holding cells in the back of the courtroom kind of looked at him with this reverential awe. The fact that he was squealing didn't diminish him in their eyes.
http://ferdyonfilms.com/2006/09/excellent-cadavers-2005-1.php
Here's the link embedded, Excellent Cadavers for those who want to read Marilyn's insightful review.
I liked what you said about The Sopranos in your review. Just a small statement really but an important one. When television or film romanticizes them too much it can be a bit unsettling. The Godfather I & II work for me because Michael is such a monster. Characters like Vito have romanticization but the central character, Michael is despicable. And in goodfellas, as I said earlier, they're all losers.
Now I never watched The Sopranos more than a few times because heretical as it may sound, I didn't like it and wasn't sure why so many people were wetting themselves over it. I was a little put off when critics I respected spent so much time breaking down the last episode as if some kind of heavenly gift had been bestowed upon us from above.
So like I said I never watched it with any regularity so Sopranos fans please correct me if my assumptions are wrong but from what I saw, Tony Soprano was the "good guy." He wasn't looked on as a monster ala Michael or a loser ala Henry Hill. And that made to change the channel.
Last sentence should read, "and that made me change the channel."
Must proof read more.
Roger Ebert explained why he thought The Godfather films work without audiences generally rejecting the violence or the characters--that the films, particularly the first one, show us the families within their own world, using their concerns, codes, and behaviors instead of judging them from the outside.
I think the films effectively seduce audiences, but it has always been very hard for me to absolve these films of a certain complicity in forwarding the romance of the gangster. It's Hollywood's way, of course, but once I became deeply interested in terrorism, I couldn't feel the same way.
I've studied terrorists for some time, and I consider the Mafia to be a terrorist organization. Midnight in Sicily, the best nonfiction book I've ever read about the Sicilian Mafia, really opened my eyes to how entrenched and evil this organization is. Again, as I said in my review, it was impossible for me to watch Th Sopranos as entertainment or as effective drama. This group is just too ugly for me to want to bring it into my home.
Holy cow. I just found out that there's a convicted child molester living in my building and even though I'm nowhere near a child I can't bring myself to talk to him. Too creepy. That being said, I don't talk to many strangers, especially ones I might have to see on a daily basis. Too many regular-people-are-actually-psychopaths movies, I guess.
I wish I believed in evil. I think it would make the day to day horrors I read about in the paper more easy to understand or at least get a handle on. I think people are capable of committing evil acts but I don't believe people are evil.
I really apprecaite the way the Coens don't attempt to offer easy answers in their films. They want their audience to think, which is a rare thing these days. Their humanism seems to bother or confuse a lot of people but I love them for it. They approach horror as something that is unfortunately just a sad part of every day life and the characters in their films are always trying to find a way to live with it in one way or another. As much as I like the ending of No Country, I'm particularly fond of the way a very pregnant Marge sums things up at the end of Fargo.
"So that was Mrs. Lundegaard on the floor in there. And I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper. And those three people in Brainerd. And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it."
Really nice, thoughtful post. Like others have said, I thought the juxtaposition of Ed Loomis and Sheriff Bell was a nice touch. And I really liked your analysis of the remorseless killer in cinema. It helped explain part of the reason why I don't like torture porn.
Even more than the Friday the 13ths, those films seem to revel in the horrible things people can do to each other without any of the analysis or search for understanding that I hope to experience as a film-goer.
Like Kimberly, I think people can commit acts of evil without being evil. And I'm really interested in the reasons behind it. Whereas torture porn, just throws all that stuff out there, like so much blood splatter on the walls, with no forensic analysis as to the hows and the whys.
I use "evil" as a word for hateful behavior that devastates and destroys. As for the difference between what Kimberly believes and Marilyn believes I won't assume definitions for them. I do not take the word in the classical sense because it implies a belief in sin, as if we're creations of a judge who will decides if we have stained our souls or not.
Marilyn, if Michael weren't so detestable I would find The Godfather much harder to take. I understand Ebert's argument but a part of me feels it is unnecessary because Michael is not presented in any romantic way and Vito, when taken over the saga, is clearly presented in juxtoposition to him in a supporting context.
elgringo - If you don't want to approach someone like that by all means don't. Having small children in the house, my wife and I know from the Maryland website where child sexual offenders are in relation to us. There's a halfway house about four blocks from here. Like the character in M, it's a sickness not a choice so I can't see how talking to them would ever change anything. I just know that our daughter is never home alone and is picked up and dropped off by us to and from school.
Kimberly, I love the quote from Fargo. When dealing with people committing horrible acts by choice as opposed to mental illness, such as in Fargo or with the Mafia as we have been discussing, I'm with Marge completely. I just don't understand it. What a foolish choice to make.
Lisa, we crossed comment streams there. I haven't seen a great deal of the new slasher flicks because it's just not a subgenre I care for so I can't really discuss the merits of them to any great degree. Here's a piece from Cinefantastique that deals with the terminology of "torture porn" as well as the way the movies are made. I saw "Hostel II" and even used a shot of the bloodied sickle in my October Kill Fest trailer and the blood bath scene is clearly done in the mode of a sexual build-up, a short drama all its own that requires the camera to linger since it is not being used just for shock value. So they do dwell on the imagery and revel in it but I think, and again I'm no expert on these movies, it has as much a purpose as the Friday the 13th movies. It's just that those films show the kills for shock, so they're quicker, and the Hostel movies play them as vignettes, little dramas in and of themselves.
But in the end, the killers in Hostel are various and so no focus is given to any one of them and thus you're left with horrible acts being committed but no central figure through which to siphon understanding, or at the least attempt understanding,like a Norman Bates or an Anton Chiguhr. As such, they leave me empty and cold.
I love that shot of Jacqueline Pearce in the banner. She doesn't get enough credit, screamqueenerywise.
I don't think of evil as sin, I think of it as a pure essence. Just as there is something that connects all human beings at moments of breakthrough, I believe there is another type of consciousness that connects to our animal instincts for destruction. Good and evil as taught by the religions of the world are social constructs.
Now for something completely besides the point:
Doesn't Godzilla in the third picture on the right rail look a lot like an avocado?
Thanks Cryptogast. I don't think it's possible for me to do a banner for October without you knowing who's in it. Of course, Hammer films aren't exactly obscure but still.
I don't think of evil as sin, I think of it as a pure essence.
I figured the three of us were thinking of it the same way but I didn't want to assume.
And thank you for pointing out Godzilla's similarity to an avocado. I could go for some guacomole right about now.
Mmm... gojiramole.
Ah so.
Jesus... scary story, man.
What a scarring experience for your father to go through. I imagine it's trickled down to you as well. That's heavy.
It's sick that he got released.
Well people do get released even after the most heinous crimes. But that kind of a story just reminds me that none of us is too far removed from the horrors of the everyday world. The thought that someone might end your life on a whim is terrifying to me, robbing someone of the joys and beauty of life and nature for no reason whatsoever. It really does make you subscribe to a philosophy of living your life to its fullest, never knowing when it all might suddenly end.
Lapper,
Well done. What a great personal story to wrap around the genre.
Evil Clown once worked at a video store in Lincoln and had to rent out some movies to a Starkweather. Obviously not THAT ONE. But definitely a relative of some kind with crazy red hair. I was a bit shaky for those few minutes.
But that's neither here nor thar.
You have Evil Clown battling himself internally on what side of the fence he is sitting for this one.
On one hand, I love Halloween for it does not try to explain why Meyers became the killer. He is just evil, pure and simple, and that's frightening. And Zombie failed on two points: 1. Trying to remake a classic. 2. Trying to give us a peek into why Meyers became the monster he was.
And yet I think we've exhausted that angle and I think that's why I couldn't completely sing the praises of The Joker in The Dark Knight. When you try to play a more real-life character, there has to be something that sparked it. Or behavior that led to it. They hinted at this a bit in the movie but were more focused on his lack of emotion towards everything. The fact that he was not motivated by money as the others were was supposed to scare us, but it left me kind of empty. To play straight up evil is a little one dimensional for me. And sometimes a cop out as far as the story goes.
Chigur gets a pass because he was a businessman and was given a job and it's still up for debate on whether or not he was real. But the story became something as seen through Jones' character. Like you said, it's a normal man in normal society trying to cope with something the he does not dare touch. And I guess it's that thinking that makes me like Carpenter's The Prince Of Darkness so much. It's the intersection of real life and scary bedtime stories coming to cross. The characters spend their time trying to make sense of it while all hell literally breaks loose.
To me the greater fear is that these people show a certain type of behavior early on and it goes undetected or just straight up ignored. To know that something could have been done and yet for one reason or not, it wasn't is pretty damn scary to me. This is more the case with the recent brash of school shootings.
But like I said, I still struggle with how I feel on this issue. And you make great points.
Amazing post, Jonathan. Wow.
I hope this isn't too long, Jonathan - but your eloquent words about remorseless killers (and your father's classmate) - those who seem to be born lacking something - really made me think of Cathy, the mother, from East of Eden. Here is how Steinbeck introduces her character (and these paragraphs have haunted me ever since I first read them in high school):
I believe there are monsters born in the world to human parents. Some you can see, misshapen and horrible, with huge heads or tiny bodies; some are born with no arms, no legs, some with three arms, some with tails or mouths in odd places. They are accidents and no one's fault, as used to be thought. Once they were considered the visible punishment for concealed sins.
And just as there are physical monsters, can there not be mental or psychic monsters born? The face and body may be perfect, but if a twisted gene or a malformed egg can produce physical monsters, may not the same process produce a malformed soul?
Monsters are variations from the accepted normal to a greater or a less degree. As a child may be born without an arm, so one may be born without kindness or the potential of conscience. A man who loses his arms in an accident has a great struggle to adjust himself to the lack, but one born without arms suffers only from people who find him strange. Having never had arms, he cannot miss them. Sometimes when we are little we imagine how it would be to have wings, but there is no reason to suppose it is the same feeling birds have. No, to a monster the norm must seem monstrous, since everyone is normal to himself. To the inner monster it must be even more obscure, since he has no visible thing to compare with others. To a man born without conscience, a soul-stricken man must seem ridiculous. To a criminal, honesty is foolish. You must not forget that a monster is only a variation, and that to a monster the norm is monstrous.
It is my belief that Cathy Ames was born with the tendencies, or lack of them, which drove and forced her all of her life. Some balance wheel was misweighed, some gear out of ratio. She was not like other people, never was from birth. And just as a cripple may learn to utilize his lack so that he becomes more effective in a limited field than the uncrippled, so did Cathy, using her difference, make a painful and bewildering stir in her world.
There was a time when a girl like Cathy would have been called possessed by the devil. She would have been exorcised to cast out the evil spirit, and if after many trials that did not work, she would have been burned as a witch for the good of the community. The one thing that may not be forgiven a witch is her ability to distress people, to make them restless and uneasy and even envious.
As though nature concealed a trap, Cathy had from the first a face of innocence. Her hair was gold and lovely; wide-set hazel eyes with upper lids that drooped made her look mysteriously sleepy. Her nose was delicate and thin, and her cheekbones high and wide, sweeping down to a small chin so that her face was heart-shaped. Her mouth was well shaped and well lipped but abnormally small -- what used to be called a rosebud. Her ears were very little, without lobes, and they pressed so close to her head that even with her hair combed up they made no silhouette. They were thin flaps sealed against her head.
Cathy always had a child's figure even after she was grown, slender, delicate arms and hands -- tiny hands. Her breasts never developed much. Before her puberty the nipples turned inward. Her mother had to manipulate them out when they became painful in Cathy's tenth year. Her body was a boy's body, narrow-hipped, straight-legged, but her ankles were thin and straight without being slender. Her feet were small and round and stubby, with fat insteps almost like little hoofs. She was a pretty child and she became a pretty woman. Her voice was huskily soft, and it could be so sweet as to be irresistible. But there must have been some steel cord in her throat, for Cathy's voice could cut like a file when she wished.
Even as a child she had some quality that made people look at her, then look away, then look back at her, troubled at something foreign. Something looked out of her eyes, and was never there when one looked again. She moved quietly and talked little, but she could enter no room without causing everyone to turn toward her.
She made people uneasy but not so that they wanted to go away from her. Men and women wanted to inspect her, to be close to her, to try and find what caused the disturbance she distributed so subtly. And since this had always been so, Cathy did not find it strange.
As a former New Yorker, the first name to pop into my head in the discussion of "evil" is Albert Fentress. This is an interesting article about evil as a potential criminal classification.
Pat (Evil Clown), Sheila, and Arbo - Thanks for the great responses.
Pat, I agree that one of Halloween's strengths is its portrayal of Meyers as evil personified but that can get old from movie to movie unless you do it right. But that doesn't mean that you have to explain anything to the viewer. Michael is a faceless, speechless killing machine. Chiguhr on the other talks up a storm but still leaves the character ambiguous in identity and motive. And it's not just money or he wouldn't continue to kill even after he has it. I enjoy that kind of ambiguouity and wish it was present more in tales of killers on the screen. I though Henry did a good job of presenting a blank, emotionless killer and let the character and his actions "explain" him.
Sheila - What an incredible description by Steinbeck. A great way not only of introducing the character but of describing the ways in which the world has changed with respect to its understanding of those people who are, shall we say, different. And Arbogast's linked-to article is a great clinical study of how some people are just "off" when it comes to decent empathetic human behavior.
I have a neighbor who has two brothers and both, BOTH, are serial killers. The neighbor takes medication to control things in his own brain and I have to tell you, he's a hell of a nice guy but he is decidedly, uh, different. He knows what's inside him is what's inside his brothers but the medication keeps him at bay. Think about it too long and it can really start to freak you out.
So wait a sec.
You live next to a guy who takes meds to keep himself in control and his two brothers are serial killers? And your dad grew up with a guy who randomly killed his teacher?
I think the Lappers are a magnet for bad people. That's why I'm drawn here.
You're not going to move in next to me are you? Cause I don't think I could take seeing an Evil Clown every day with my coffee.
I am so curious about a family that produces two serial killers.
I don't watch a lot of horror films. Vampires, Killer Sharks and Aliens with claws I can handle. The closer to reality, the more uncomfortable I become. I have great difficulty with film that tackles the serial killer or someone who kills for no reason... because of some sort of compulsion. Mafia films, not the same thing. Torture porn, not the same thing. Those films acknowledge a variety of reasons or focus on the act itself, the physical result. There's something terrifying about the examination of a character who is killing simply because human life means nothing to them, because some part of them is dead, because the instinct that it is wrong - because the part of a human being that really makes them human just isn't there. Mostly, I imagine, because we know these people exist and we may very well pass them on the street.
Someone I cared about was killed by someone like that. I never liked horror movies, but having that kind of personal awareness that monsters like that really do live among us - well, it made it impossible to watch anything like that again.
I don't believe in evil in the religious sense of the word. I think people like that are missing something. Less than human. I think I might have done the same thing your father did, but it being that close to home and all I have to say - it doesn't really matter why he did it. Like you said - would "She gave me a bad grade." have been better? Of course not. There really isn't a reason and the vague shambly semblance of one would be useless and uncomfortably hollow.
The real horror is knowing my friend died just because she happened to run into the wrong guy. It could have been anyone. She didn't make a foolish move, get in over her head with the wrong people or stray down a dangerous path like characters in a movie. She went for a walk in the middle of the day. THAT kind of story is truly terrifying. Films that tackle the senseless and almost mundane killer amongst us are the most frightening. Needless to say, I prefer not to watch them.
I'll stick to aliens and vampires.
Marisa, as I said, I really don't enjoy madkiller movies. I much prefer spooky and haunting to graphic and disturbing. I remember reading about your friend on your blog and I can't imagine how difficult it must be to lose a friend that way. Things that are random and senseless are to me the most horrifying of all. It could happen to us anywhere at anytime and it's one of the reasons those types of movies don't work well for me on an "entertainment" level.
sorry I got all bummer on you jonathan - I think it's really impressive that you're doing a whole month on the horror theme!
Marisa, not at all. I love your input always. And I love doing this kind of theme month once a year but a new post on the dark side every day gets a little old after a while. I'm ready for November.
Post a Comment