I don't think it goes far to say that I am a pretty big fan of horror and it just so happens from time to time I purchase little goodies that help fuel my liking for spooky little things. One time I stumbled upon two books that I ended up purchasing because of how they cheap they were and because they had glossy pages that appealed to me. The first book was How to be a Werewolf by Serena Valentino and the second one was How to be a Vampire by Amy Gray. They were both very nice books for the vampire or the werewolf enthusiast, but I've recently sold both of them. (I am currently going through a period where I'm pretty much getting rid of anything I don't love, need, or have a huge sentimental attachment to.) Of course before I sent both lovelies to their new home, I decided to scan a few pages from both books to share with you all
I will be doing a few posts where I share certain sections of each book. Of course before I do that I though I would put in a good recommendation for each book and encourage the actual purchase of either one.
How to be a Werewolf by Serena Valentino Synopsis: Celebrate
your inner beast and harness that newfound animal magnetism! with this
essential guide to the lycanthropic lifestyle. Are you subject to savage
moods, extreme and unexplained buffness, and cravings for meat on the
rare side? Do you long for super speed and reflexes, along with rapid
healing and maybe a talent for telepathy? Welcome to the pack and get
ready to howl as you sink your claws into this guide to everything life
as a werewolf has to offer. Among its abundant fur-raising topics: A
look at good, bad, and ugly transformation styles, including an answer
to the question of what happens to your clothes. A quiz to determine if
you're a menace to society, and tips on taking precautions Planning your
social schedule around the lunar calendar Dating hints, from the risks
and rewards of cross-species romance to avoiding your sweetheart's
family pet Killer fashion suggestions, from urban (leather and hardware)
to a cute and foxy kitsune look Ideas, decorations, and recipes for a
full-moon party Tales of real-life werewolves, plus lore and legends
from around the world Juicy reading material and gems of the silver
screen
Teenage werewolves are invited to
celebrate their inner beast--and harness that newfound animal
magnetism--with this essential guide to the lycanthropic lifestyle.
Illustrations.
AND
How to be a Vampire by Amy GraySynopsisFor
those who join the decadent realm of the vampire, eternal life holds
juicy perks--charm and strength, shape-shifting and flying, telepathy
and super-powered senses. "How to Be a Vampire" is a comprehensive guide
to the vampire lifestyle that quenches newcomers' thirst for lore--and
tasteful tips. Illustrations.
Welcome to
the world of the undead! A comprehensive guide to the vampire lifestyle
quenches newcomers' thirst for lore and tasteful tips. For those who
join the decadent realm of the vampire, eternal life holds juicy perks
charm and strength, shape-shifting and flying, telepathy and
super-powered senses. But then again, one becomes . . . so terribly
hungry. Is there an etiquette for feeding without causing a scene? How
do you set up your crypt? What supernatural foes will make your blood
run colder? In this elegant, edgy resource, the newly immortal will
find everything they need to know, including: - a quiz to determine your
true vampire persona - ways to turn into a vampire or when a kiss is
not just a kiss; and why you should take a look at your family tree - a
transformation checklist, including canine teeth and UV sensitivity - a
makeup and fashion guide to looking damned good (or just damn ed) -
knowing your weaknesses, from garlic, stakes, and sunlight to a n
obsession with counting - 10 signs that your boyfriend is a vampire,
including super coolness (body temperature-wise) and a habit of
sleeping in - a field guide to vampiric variations around the world and
through history.
-Horrorwood Doll.
P.S. The reason I decided to sell each book is because I really don't have an exact need for them or much reason to look back at them, but they are packed full of information and pictures. I'm sure if you are a huge fan of either monster, you'll love them.
P.S.S.
Also check out How to be a Zombie that was also written by Serena Valentino.
I didn't know this, but did you know Universal did something similar to Disney's Wonderful World of Color? Their show is called, Universal's Cinematic Spectacular: 100 Years of Movie Memories.Best yet, the whole thing is narrated by Mr.Likes to take a bath in a casket. Horror starts at 6:29.
In other news:
Universal Pictures has signed a two-year production deal with Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, who are best know for writing "Star Trek" and "Transformers." The duo will kick off their new relationship with modern reboots of Universal's "Van Helsing" and "The Mummy" franchises.
At this point, very little is known about the two films, except that Tom Cruise is attached to produce and star in "Van Helsing," which was turned into a film in 2004 with Hugh Jackman (pictured) playing the title character.
"We're thrilled to call Universal Pictures our home," said Kurtzman and Orci. "They
really understand the importance of building a strong creative team and
giving our shared projects their full support. We're proud to start
making movies that will live as part of Universal's enduring legacy."
Source: Universal Pictures
Personal Comments: I'm personally a fan of the 90s The Mummy. I never saw it as a remake of the Boris Karloff film, but more of a film that paid homage to it. It's one of my personal favorite popcorn films and was one of the first modern horror films I was ever allowed to see.
Van Helsing is another film I sort of grown up with, even though it's kind of bad. I'm actually really curious to see how both these films will turn out.
It's Friday the 13th. A day that has become a mini holiday in an odd way.
If you need something to do check out Joss Whedon's Cabin In the Woods.
Random Fact: The cabin in Cabin in the Woods is an exact replica of the cabin from Evil Dead 2.
AMC Theaters are also offering a free small popcorn all you have to do is like them on Facebook, print your coupon and bring it to the concession stand. Offer Valid only from April 13-15.
Many stores are having their online sales today. Why not get yourself something pretty? :)
Spirit-13% off one item with a minimum purchase of $60. Enter FRI13 during check out.
Too Fast-20% off of everything. Use the code Friday 13-20 during check out.
We write for the attention of all Hollywood producers, writers, and
most certainly directors of horror cinema over the last couple of
decades. Quite a lot of you have been responsible for a serious crime,
too-often committed against us, the paying horror audience: incompetent
and complacent film making. The growing laziness in the genre has become
more and more obvious, certainly since the turn of the millennium. We
wish to address this by taking a look at some of the major errors you
tend to make; horror from the rest of the world does not seem to make
these mistakes, and so there is no reason you should:
Anyone can make us jump
Okay
so we all love a good jump here and there; trust us, we really do! It
is a great moment when you are sat there... tense, curious, nervous...
and then BANG, the 'thing' happens and the entire screen
(hopefully completely rammed, because this movie is supposed to
incredibly epic) jumps and screams in unison. Indeed, it brings about an
immediate sense of togetherness - camaraderie, if you like, and the
relief laughter and chatter is a very pleasing sound that nobody will
ever moan about.
It should be remembered, however, that this can very quickly be overdone (I’m looking at you, The Woman In Black),
and in fact even with the jump-scares you do use, you need to be
careful that they do not become cheap or unrealistic; the last thing we
want is to be immersed in the atmosphere of a scene and for the wrong
thing make us jump.
You think this means we feel more scared, but sometimes the opposite
is actually true; a badly-judged jump-scare will certainly make us jump,
but will be followed closely by laughter, leaving us detached from both
the horror and the film.
Why does this happen? It all comes down to whether the jump works as
part of the story, and as part of a particular scene. Frank Darabont,
speaking about one particular jump-scare in his adaptation of Stephen
King’s The Mist', said that it was “the oldest trick in the book” that
got the author leaping from his seat when watching it for the first
time.
Brilliant...he thinks he made Stephen King jump; but with that quote
he does actually hit the nail on the head! We all know the jump-scare
can be used to good effect, because it is indeed “the oldest trick in
the book”: the frame is set and then something bursts into it
unexpectedly.
The thing is we can all make somebody jump, it is very
simple; jump out on them, or sneak up behind them when they are not
expecting it and say boo really loudly. That is great, and fun, but
ultimately not scary in the long-term. It should also be pointed out
that film makers with actors, make-up, lighting, set design, hopefully a
scary story to tell, and a long list of other tools to hand should not
be resorting to a simple little trick - one readily available to us at
home - before hoping that a barrage of the same trick will send us home
with a need to tell everybody how frightening the film is.
We won’t.
Hollywood, if that's all you have to offer then I can promise you we will be talking about it at home...just not in the light you may have hoped.
"Using a jump as a pay-off to a building of tension gets tired after a while - trust us"
Please understand this is not to suggest we do not like the occasional good jump. For instance, a film like Rec has
just the right amount of jumps peppered through, but the creation of
tension envelops the moments rather than providing a build up. The
result is that we find ourselves totally shaken by the superb jump, but
not off the hook, as the dread continues to build. Using a jump as a pay-off to a building of tension gets tired after a while - trust us.
Enjoy the silence
It is one of the most basic principles of cinema: the soundtrack aids
the emotional drive of a movie. It tells us when to feel certain
feelings, amongst other things. Sadness, longing, excitement, tension,
and yes, even fear! You have heard of the expression, “over-egging the
pudding” though, yes? Any film that is over-scored is annoying; but in
the realm of terror, it can very easily dispel the fear rather than
enhance it. There are some truly terrifying moments in cinema from
around the world that work because they understand that silence can be
deafening in the right circumstances.
Take A Tale Of Two Sisters for example - this contains one of the most chilling bedroom sequences in a horror film since Poltergeist;
and take note of the fact that the director does not insist on bashing
you over the head with a discordant orchestra sting because “that it
will amplify the scare", but in fact relies purely on the natural sounds
of the room. Likewise, in another scene, the atmosphere is deathly-cold
and incredibly tense, through nothing more than the excellent sound of
wind.
In silence, we are tense; we are waiting for something awful, and
that natural sound of what is around us, even if it's pure silence, can
be deafening and creepier than any piece of music you wish to add to the
scene.
Music enhances shocking moments nicely, such as the shower-stabbing in Psycho;
but if you go and watch the scene now and take note of the sound that
leads up to the moment, what do you notice? A shower running. That is
the only sound.
Silence can be your greatest weapon.
Don’t butcher the fear
When
you have all your footage, resist the urge to hack away and re-assemble
every last frame. In horror, possibly more so than any other genre,
what the camera shows us, what we see and when we see it, could never be more important.
Sometimes the way some of you chuck this stuff together can be
mind-boggling, headache-inducing; and, worst of all, not scary. The fear
can be found with the right cut at the right time, so keep away from
the editing studio...
Take a little look at The Birds. Do we really need to
mention that classic scene that is simply one woman sat on a bench while
we know the birds are gathering? We don’t need to see it; we can
already sense what's going to happen. That way, when the shot is finally
panned into view, the true horror of the situation - that is, a
climbing frame crammed with birds - confirms our fears and raises the
suspense to unbearable levels.
One of the greatest examples from overseas is most certainly Ju-On: The Grudge.
I can barely put into words the feeling of realising that creepy little
kid is peering through the banister; he’s been there for how long? Fear presents itself through the unknown and Ju-On: The Grudge makes full use of the fact.
Many of you have taken heed of this already, as shown in the recent Insidious, which, despite its silly final act, does very well in this field. Likewise with The Strangers, there is a moment in the kitchen which is very successful.
Not everyone gets it right though; Gore Verbinski’s take on The Ring features
a re-working of the most frightening sequence in the original, and
makes a complete hash of it by having no sense of pace.
Getting the cut right is a big part of the challenge.
"Get us to care about something, anything, and you will drive the fear deeper..."
Nothing scarier than the imagination
Served as an accompaniment to the previous point, this was a notion associated very heavily with The Silence of the Lambs,
a film which comes to a climax in a room where nothing can be seen. Our
heroine Clarice Starling is feeling her way around a dark room, knowing
the killer is with her, watching. This works as a nice analogy for a
principle of horror that Hitchcock, once again, understood all too well:
Often it is what you do not see that is frightening.
Remember, our minds are dark closets filled with the most messed up,
disturbing thoughts you could imagine, and we love to exaggerate, to go
overboard; usually we just need a little push. So you can show us all
the monsters, beasts, ghosts, blood and guts you like, and there will be
the time and place for that. But you are so frequently better off
giving us a just a taste of it, a hint of what it is we are to be scared about - and then leave us to fill in the blanks.
Remember, The Blair Witch Project? With no need to pander to anybody, they kept everything low-key and ridiculously simple. It could even be argued that Blair Witch is
not technically a great film - but with the marketing campaign giving
it a head-start, it became the most effective American horror of the
decade. Admittedly it hinges on whether you play along with the notion
of being lost in the woods; but at no point do we see the antagonist; at
no point do we even know what it/she is. Instead we hear the right
things at the right times, and we watch as a woman runs through the
woods, clearly having seen something that we cannot. And it is horrible!
H. P. Lovecraft has been a long-standing example of an author who
scares the pants off his readers, all of whom find it extremely
difficult to tell you why they are scared. We all wait on tender-hooks
for the possible Del Toro production of At The Mountains of Madness, which seems to be under strain; but we shall see.
Put simply, keep it simple Hollywood...let us do your work for you, because we are very good at it.
If we care, we will scare
Since the advent of torture-porn, it has been very easy for people
like Eli Roth (a reasonable film maker in his own way) and Rob Zombie (a
not so reasonable film maker), to get away with presenting the most
turgid, infantile filth, often in the form of the most ridiculous,
over-the-top, moronic splatter-fests, and pretend that they have done
something really subversive, clever and scary.
I
have news for people like this: There is no subversion, and there is
nothing clever about torture when there is no drive behind it other than
the question, “How hideous can people be?”.
We know this already. We see real life happen. As for being scary, both Eli Roth and Rob Zombie admire Audition by Takashi Miike and presumably believe that they are paying homage to a master of the genre, because hey, he did a torture scene too!
Indeed he did, and if you go take a look at that film, you will
notice it turns the genre on its head, and consequently the audience; it
is a movie that blindfolds us, spins us in fast circles, and tells us
to pin the tail on the donkey. It makes us care for the very real
characters, so that when the horror finally hits home, it hurts us - and we understand its significance.
Take a look at the Guillermo Del Toro produced The Orphanage or even his own movie Cronos. Both
are films that have sincere themes and exploit honest, human fears -
the one concerning child death and another the subject of ageing. What
does torture-porn talk about?
More often than not the best horror stems from within: our own fears
about life, death, and the tragedy that is sometimes being human. There
is only so much blood and guts being spilled for its own sake that we
can watch before we simply get bored and immune. Themes we care about
never tire. They are about us, they are ideas we must care about.
David Cronenberg is a director whose shocking horror remains a
triumph by virtue of the revolution he brought about: in 'body horror' -
horror of the flesh. Watch The Fly, his re-working of a
classic yet simple fable, and witness a master at work. Using the fly
metamorphosis as a metaphor for our fear of disease - the horror from
which we cannot escape - is a journey into deep-seated terror. To bring
that to a point where we are both mortified and heartbroken for a man
who has become useless in front of his loved one is truly a stroke of
genius.
With
horror often comes a tremendous sense of sadness, or tragedy,
emphasising the terror, driving the story home and haunting us for days
or weeks. These are the films we talk about; these are the films horror
geeks adore. Yes, we enjoy a bit of teen-hacking as much as the next
man, but even with films such as A Nightmare On Elm Street, The Last House On The Left or The Hills Have Eyes,
you are watching work from a film-maker trying to present ideas that
run deeper than the carving-up of flesh; ideas that are supposed to bury
themselves in your head and get you thinking. That is one pivotal
element of the way these films scare - empathy, sense memory - driving
fear deeper.
Stop cheating!
Even the most forgiving horror nerds are becoming frustrated with the
endless stream of remakes - often recreated almost shot-for-shot - just
because you want to make an easy buck. We are wise to the game, and as
much as you might hoodwink a lot of the naive, you are not getting one
over on horror fans; we grow tired of your minimalist imagination.
Unless there is a writer’s strike, there is no reason for it - it is
just cheating and, if we are being honest, the remake rarely has the
qualities that made the original so great, notwithstanding how well-made
it is.
And renaming it does not make the crime any more forgiveable, so please stop doing it.
Conclusion – Trust us, we have a brain
There will always be a lowest common denominator audience out there -
those who cannot keep up with cinema that pushes them to engage their
brains beyond that point required to understand the twist of a Saw movie.
But that's not a reason to water everything down, resort to cheap
tricks and simple, one-dimensional set-ups that do not stay with us for
more than five minutes after walking out of the cinema.
Horror is at its best and most terrifying when it has a brain. The
frustrating thing is that the history of cinema from the West shows that
there have been those artists who have understood the above-mentioned. So what has happened?
You can take this as an appeal to the darkest part of your hearts,
and the smartest, most twisted corners of your collective imagination
that quietly crave to be more daring: Stop playing it down for the
simple-minded audience all the time and start proving that which we
know, you know, to be true - horror can be so much more than “slash and
hack”.
"We want the real monsters, the intelligence, the tragedy, the sadness and the metaphors"
We need the horror that avoids the tired clichés, the torture porn,
the over-cutting for the short attention spans, and the predictable
jump-scares for those who think that these alone create fear. Alfred
Hitchcock did not need such tricks when making The Birds and Psycho; even with Vertigo, which is not a horror movie, Hitchcock was able to create a chilling and genuinely haunting thriller.
William Friedkin, with 1973's The Exorcist, did not need to
resort to such banal methods to create what is still regarded, despite
its relative crudity when compared with modern films, as one of the
greatest horror movies of all time.
David Cronenberg, the director who showed you how to use visual
metaphor to explore the most horrendous themes, is a man whose horror
work was heralded as brilliant simply for being high-brow, for being
about concepts of the fear within, the horror of identity, the very real
terror that comes simply with being human. He made films about ideas for the most deeply-rooted, ugly parts of us to relate to.
We want that sort of horror - it is cleansing, therapeutic and
healthy. We want the real monsters, the intelligence, the tragedy, the
sadness and the metaphors.
In short, we need the horror that runs deeper than a pint of blood
smeared across the screen, in the vain hope it will be enough to keep us
awake at night.
Yours faithfully,
The Audience
A letter that could have been written by any horror fan. Thank you Daniel Elford for wording it all so perfectly. You can see the original here.
Now for the rest of us who are nostalgic for real horror; check out Channel 4's 100 Scariest moments. It's all based off of what viewers chose. It's a bit different from what many American channels would have for 100 scariest moments because Channel 4 is a British channel. There are many predictable moments such as Jaws, Halloween, and what not, but there are some different moments on there as well.
Some highlights
#100 Oncoming Train (Ha! I just find this one so fascinating. Great to know they looked back into history for what scared people
# 94 Cat People (I'm always happy to see this movie getting credit for what it did for horror)
# 89 Atomic Fallout Public Announcement (I would have honestly put this much higher. There is nothing scarier than having the presence of horror being possibly integrated in your everyday life.)
# 80 Snow White (Oh, Disney getting us hooked on scares at such a young age.)
# 72 Alice Cooper... Just Alice Cooper (Haha! Of course.)
#71 Thriller- Micheal Jackson (Still one of the greatest music videos of all time.)
# 54 Dr. Who Theme (Best Television theme of all time)
# 39 Dr. Who and the Daleks (Nothing scarier than a robot with a plunger)
# 25 Buffy-Hush (A very scary episode from my favorite show.)
# 21 Twin Peaks (A very strange and odd show. There will never be anything quite like it.)
This fantastic photo shoot done for Elle online magazine was done by Ryan Murphy. The Co-creator of shows such as Glee and American Horror Story. The shots are done with Stars from Glee and some stars from Murphy's other shows. It's great to see that someone has taken a notice in the classic and timeless looks featured in many horror films. Murphy was also kind enough to share his personal feelings on many of these classic films. You can read it here.
It's a solid list, but the rankings are off in my opinion and way too many deserving actresses are left off the list in place of ones that not many have heard about. I just find it a little odd that Lara Parker didn't make the cut as Angelique in the television show Dark Shadows.
Seriously, Lara Parker out babes most modern day scream queens.
Greetings. I know now is the season for horror and this is the time most horror blogs really like to strut their stuff. I have lifes little engagments along with other projects, that keep me from making this blog a priority. -sigh- maybe one day I'll have more time to focus on this little blog, but this is sadly not the time.
Well enough of my sorry excuses. Now, is the time reflect back on our most fond memories of our youth. If you were a child of the 90s/ early 2000s then you will remember Fox Family's 13 Nights of Halloween. For 13 nights, we had films and shows that were sure to frighten and excite young and old. During, the day many films and shows were shown that were for the whole family, but once night had come it was time for films and shows, that were made for a much older/braver audience.
These past few years, I've began to notice that the 13 Nights of Halloween are no longer, well horrorfying. Every single film show is family friendly and there is nothing for the more mature audience. The channel is now ABC Family (A Disney Owned Channel), so naturally you're just not going to get the frights that Fox Family used to dish out. Another reason why, we no longer have these shows is probably due to parent complaints. Don't parents know, that being freaked out by a scary movie/ show is a part of childhood. Goodness, as a child I was scared by many things, but I enjoyed every minute of it.
The show I missed most from 13 nights of Halloween line-up was a reality show called Scariest Places on Earth. In every episode they would dump a group of people in some of the most creepiest places in the world and have them wander around, while random things were rigged to spook the unwanted visitors. This was awesome and my favorite portion of the show was when the haunted history of each destination was talked about in detail. Add, Linda Blair as the hostess and the voice of Zelda Rubinstien from Poltrageist as the narrator and you had a show, that was sure to please any horror fan.
Now, keep in mind that quite a few of the things that happened in the showe were complete BS! There were times when things were fabricated and events were often staged. The show was just so darn entertaining, that you could not just resist. Being a small thing in the early 2000s, I often has a hard time getting to sleep after and episode. Hell, I still might have a hard time getting to sleep after an episode.
My personal favorite was the episode of Poveglia-The Italian Island of the Dead. For those who have seen the show, what was yours?
Bizenghast is a tale set in the fictional New England town with the same name. That tale focuses on the a mentally ill fifteen-year-old name Dinah. Her past is a tragic one due to the car crash that left her orphaned at a very young age. The girl is sent to live with her aunt who resides in a haunted house. The house was originally a hospital and then boarding school and a satanic coven. (Okay, I made the last part up, but what are the chances of a house once being two of the things that almost guarantee a haunted house.) It turns out that are protagonist Dinah can see ghosts, which causes her aunt to believe that her darling little niece suffers from schizophrenia.
One, bright and shinning day, Dinah and her extremely loyal friend Vincent decide to take a walk to search for trinkets of his hodge podge of a garden. They come across a mysterious mausoleum in the middle of the woods. Being teenagers in a horror comic, they decide to investigate the sketchy mausoleum. Dinah comes across plaque with Dinah's name on it that turns out to be some contract. For some odd reason Dinah signs it and binds herself to the contract that requires her to come to the mausoleum every night and free the ghosts. If she succeeds she will win her freedom and some unknown reward. If she fails she will die and linger inside the cursed mausoleum as a corpse.
For the longest time I've heard all kinds of things about the comic series Bizenghast and being a fan of its creator M. Alice Legrow, I found it was time to check the series out. The first volume pretty much follows the plot listed above and a few ghost encounters. Every night when Dinah and Vincent enter the mausoleum they much enter a special world that the ghost resides in and free them from that world and get them to enter the fate that waits for them in the afterlife. The strange ghostly worlds is where a great deal of the horror in the comic comes from. The horror in the comic is more psychological or eerie, instead of grotesque, but there is enough horrorific elements present in the comic to keep many horror fans content.
The art in the comic is well done for the most part and can even be quite stunning from time to time, but there does seem to be a few rushed and sloppy panels seen from time to time. Each chapter has a beautifully done tarot inspired chapter card, which almost makes the comic worth-a-look to just see each chapter card, alone. Each ghost world was captivating in its own right and was rich with detail. There is a wonderful range of detailed backgrounds and costumes. The artist seemed to take quite a bit of time to make sure tha the comic had its own unique look and feel.
Now, after all that praise I feel that it is time to talk about the comics cons. The comics characters are one note and dull. The antagonist, Dinah seems to do nothing, but whine, which is fine with me in small amounts, but the amount of whinnying that the main character does is ridiculous. Vincent hardly exhibits any sort of personality and seems to only follow Dinah and get her to stop whinnying. The comic relief character introduced at the end of vol. 1 is neither funny or witty. The characters seem to be lifeless in the story that they're in, which makes it terribly hard for the reader to make any true connections with the characters themselves.
The plot in Bizenghast is interesting, but badly executed. The creator seemed to take more time crafting and creating details for the story of Bizenghast rather then creating a solid narrative. The plot seems rushed during the first half of the tale and seems to slow to a crawl during the second half. This made it terribly hard for me to get through and spent time wishing that the creator had took the time to focus on the plot rather then all the pointless costume changes that was given to Dinnah.
By Vol. 2 I had almost decided to give up on Bizenghast and consider it poorly done comic, with pretty artwork. For some reason or another I decided to check out the third volume at my library and give the series one more chance. To my surprise there was a complete turn around in the quality of the comic. The artwork all though well done from the start, was now exquisitely done in every panel instead of the occasional sloppy panel seen in the last two volumes. The main character was now competent and three-dimensional. In fact all the characters in Bizenghast seemed to have zest and personality. Characters now had their own objectives, and were now able to tell a compelling story. As a reader I now cared about the fate of each character and now felt a bit tense when characters were put into dangerous situations. The comic relief character in Bizenghast was no longer needlessly random and was actually humorus. There were actually a few times that I found my self laughing out loud, while I was reading. There seemed to be a complete turn around in the comics quality and all of a sudden I wanted to read on and find out what fate holds for the the characters of Bizenghast.
Even though I found the first two volumes of Bizenghast to be terribly boring and tedious, I was completely won over by the third volume. I can only hope that the quality of Bizenghast will continue to improve and not revert back to the quality seen in the first two volumes. Now, the comic is by no means a masterpiece by any means, but it's certainly worth a look and can most likely be found at your local library. There are eight volumes of Bizenghast in total, with the eighth due to be released this year.
When I was little I heard the tale of The Velvet Ribbon in a children's horror book called "In a Dark, Dark Room and Other Scary Stories" The tale was simple and short, but for some reason the tale was just so darn memorable. The story itself is eerie and depending on the version you hear/read it might give you a nightmare or two. I find it interesting that in each version of the story, the husbands interest in the velvet ribbon becomes an obsession. We never find out why the wife is headless and much to the husbands dismay his wife's past is ambiguous in nature. The ribbon could symbolize the woman's past and the man's inability or ability to come to terms with the fact that no matter her past will remain a mystery till she deems him worthy enough to reveal it to him.
Version 1:
She was beautiful in a strange, mysterious way. Her hair and her deep bottomless eyes were as black as the velvet ribbon around her neck. He planned to marry her before the next full moon rose in the autumn sky.
On their wedding, he watched her walked towards him up the long aisle. She was dressed in a white gown, a white veil, and carried a bouquet of white flowers. Even her face was ivory white. But below it, around the ivory neck, was the black velvet ribbon. He remembered staring at that ribbon as the strains of the wedding march brought his bride nearer to him. He remembered the curious and shocked looks on the faces of the wedding guests. But then his eyes met hers, and he was drowning in their bottomless darkness.
He didn't think of the velvet ribbon during the rest of his wedding day. It was a joyous time, and if people thought his wife was a bit strange, they kept that to themselves. That night, when they were alone, he saw that the ribbon was still there, still circling her lovely neck.
"Don't you ever take that ribbon from around your neck?" he asked, hoping his question was a needless one.
You'll be sorry if I do," his wife answered, "so I won't."
Her answer disturbed him, but he did not question her further. There was plenty of time for her to change her ways.
Their life together fell into a pleasant pattern. They were happy, as most newly married couples are. He found her to be a perfect wife... well, nearly perfect. Although she had a great number of dresses and wore a different one every day, she never changed the black velvet ribbon. This ribbon began to be the test of their marriage. When he looked at her, his eyes would inevitably fall to her neck. When he kissed her, he could feel the ribbon tightening around his own throat.
"Won't you please take that ribbon from around your neck?" he asked her time and time again.
"You'll be sorry if I do, so I won't." This was always her answer. At first it teased him. Then it began to grate on his nerves. Now it was beginning to infuriate him.
"You'll be sorry if I do."
"You'll be sorry if I do."
One day he tried to pull the ribbon off after she had repeated her answer, like a mechanical doll. It wouldn't come loose from her neck. He realized then, for the first time, that the ribbon had no beginning and no end. It circled her neck like a band of steel. He had drawn back from her in disgust that day. Things weren't the same with them after that.
At the breakfast table, the black ribbon seemed to mock him as he drank his suddenly bitter coffee. In the afternoon, outisde, the ribbon made a funeral out of the sunlight. But it was at night when it bothered him the most. He knew he could live with it no longer.
"Either take that ribbon off, or I will," he said one night to his wife of only four weeks.
"You'll be sorry if I do, so I won't." She smiled at him, and then fell off to sleep.
But he did not sleep. He lay there, staring at the hated ribbon. He had meant what he said. If she would not take off the ribbon, he would.
As she lay sleeping and unsuspecting, he crept out of bed and over to her sewing box. He had seen a small, sharp scissors she kept there. It was thin enough, he knew, to slip between the velvet ribbon and her soft neck. Gripping the scissors in his trembling hands, he walked softly back to the bed. He came up to where she lay and stood over her. Her head was thrown back on the pillow, and her throat with the black velvet ribbon around it rose ever so slightly with her breathing.
He bent down, and with one swift movement, he forced the thin blade of the scissors under the ribbon. Then with a quick, triumphant snip, he severed the ribbon that had come between them.
The black velvet ribbon fell away from his wife's neck....her head rolled off the bed and landed on the floor with a thump. She was muttering, "You'll be sorry, you'll be sorry......."
Once there was a man who fell in love with a beautiful girl. And before
the next full moon rose in the sky, they were wed.
To please her husband, the young wife wore a different gown each night.
Sometimes she was dressed in yellow; other nights she wore red or blue
or white. And she always wore a black velvet ribbon around her slender
neck.
Day and night she wore that ribbon, and it was not long before her
husband's curiosity got the better of him.
"Why do you always wear that ribbon?" he asked.
She smiled a strange smile and said not a word.
At last her husband got angry. And one night he shouted at his bride.
"Take that ribbon off! I'm tired of looking at it."
You will be sorry if I do," she replied, "so I won't." Every morning at
breakfast, the husband ordered his wife to remove the black velvet
ribbon from around her neck. Every night at dinner he told her the same
thing.
But every morning at breakfast and every night at dinner, all his wife.
would say was, "You'll be sorry if I do. So I won't."
A week had passed. The husband no longer looked into his wife's eyes. He
could only stare at that black velvet ribbon around her neck.
One night as his wife lay sleeping, he tiptoed to her sewing basket. He
took out a pair of scissors.
Quickly and quietly, careful not to awaken her, he bent over his wife's
bed
and
SNIP! went the scissors, and the velvet ribbon fell to the floor
and
SNAP! off came her head. It rolled over the floor in the moonlight,
wailing tearfully:
"I...told...you...you'd...be...s-o-r-r-y!"
Version 3:
Yellow Ribbon
retold by S.E. Schlosser
Jane wore a yellow ribbon around her neck everyday. And I mean everyday, rain or shine, whether it matched her outfit or not. It annoyed her best friend Johnny after awhile. He was her next door neighbor and had known Jane since she was three. When he was young, he had barely noticed the yellow ribbon, but now they were in high school together, it bothered him.
“Why do you wear that yellow ribbon around your neck, Jane?” he’d ask her every day. But she wouldn’t tell him.
Still, in spite of this aggravation, Johnny thought she was cute. He asked her to the soda shoppe for an ice cream sundae. Then he asked her to watch him play in the football game. Then he started seeing her home. And come the spring, he asked her to the dance. Jane always said yes when he asked her out. And she always wore a yellow dress to match the ribbon around her neck.
It finally occurred to Johnny that he and Jane were going steady, and he still didn’t know why she wore the yellow ribbon around her neck. So he asked her about it yet again, and yet again she did not tell him. “Maybe someday I’ll tell you about it,” she’d reply. Someday! That answer annoyed Johnny, but he shrugged it off, because Jane was so cute and fun to be with.
Well, time flew past, as it has a habit of doing, and one day Johnny proposed to Jane and was accepted. They planned a big wedding, and Jane hinted that she might tell him about the yellow ribbon around her neck on their wedding day. But somehow, what with the preparations and his beautiful bride, and the lovely reception, Johnny never got around to asking Jane about it. And when he did remember, she got a bit teary-eyed, and said: “We are so happy together, what difference does it make?” And Johnny decided she was right.
Johnny and Jane raised a family of four, with the usual ups and downs, laughter and tears. When their golden anniversary rolled around, Johnny once again asked Jane about the yellow ribbon around her neck. It was the first time he’d brought it up since the week after their wedding. Whenever their children asked him about it, he’d always hushed them, and somehow none of the kids had dared ask their mother. Jane gave Johnny as sad look and said: “Johnny, you’ve waited this long. You can wait awhile longer.”
And Johnny agreed. It was not until Jane was on her death bed a year later that Johnny, seeing his last chance slip away, asked Jane one final time about the yellow ribbon she wore around her neck. She shook her head a bit at his persistence, and then said with a sad smile: “Okay Johnny, you can go ahead and untie it.”
With shaking hands, Johnny fumbled for the knot and untied the yellow ribbon around his wife’s neck.
And Jane’s head fell off.
Origins of the Tale
The origin of the tale is unknown, but many believe that the tale roots back to the French Revolution. The events and occurrences of the French Revolution are in fact nightmarish in their own right. After the "Reign of Terror" it became fashionable for the youth who had lost a personal family member to revolution to throw macabre soirees known as 'Les bals des victimes', or 'The victims’ balls'. It was at these parties where a series of strange and rebellious fashions began to make a scene. Women and men both cut their hair in the style of cheveux à la titus, a style used to commemorate the same cut that was given to the victims of the guillotine. This short hairstyle for men became terribly fashionable throughout Europe and really started the trend for men to have short hair.(The French Reveloution is responsible for quite a few of our modern day fashions, like pants.) The women had their own special fashion, red ribbons were worn across the upper back of dresses and most importantly women began to wear red ribbons around their neck to symbolize where the blade of the guillotine had cut the victims of the "Reign of Tower".
Perhaps, it was during this time period that the tale of "The Velvet Ribbon" was formed, but untill I can find solid information I can't really say for sure. All, that I know for a fact is that the tale will live on and many more versions will be seen in the future.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) is regarded as one of the most horrific films to hit theaters and is without a doubt one of the defining films of the slasher horror genre. Like many films of the era a handful of teenagers/college students are involved. In this version the group of young adults are on their way to visit an old house that belonged to two of the youths grandfather. On there way to the old abandoned home they pick up a hitch-hiker who is crazy and ends up slicing up the hand of one of the young travelers. This of course ends with the crazy hitch-hiker getting his ass thrown on the road (and the reason why no one picks up hitch-hikers anymore.) The kids stop by a small gas station that has no gas, but has some delicious barbecue. The kids decide to keep moving along with their journey to grandpa's old abandoned house. Once they make it to the house the characters begin to venture towards a nearby and stupidly walk in uninvited where they get picked off one by one.
The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a semi-intelligent film that seems to play around with certain concepts that are never fully explored. At the beginning of there is talk of animal killings in slaughterhouses and ones destiny of sorts. Is ones life/day planned out by fate? What happens when one loses purpose? Are human-beings more animalistic in nature then what we want to believe? Again, these concepts are not ever really explored in the film and I really am probably looking far into things that aren't really. It really is the conversations that are had by the characters at the beginning of the film that really make the events that happen later on in the film that much more interesting.
The series of characters are slightly more developed than the type of characters you would see in the majority of slasher films, but they still aren't developed enough for one to really care about once they meet their demise. The conversations at the beginning of the film is what gives the characters more depth, however their actions don't follow through to what a normal human being would do.
This film has been regarded as one of the most violent and brutal films of all time and was even banned in certain countries. In reality very little blood is seen in the film, but the film gains its horrific tone from its atmosphere and onscreen deaths. The films most memorable deaths actually don't stem from the chainsaw that the film is so known for. The film is most remembered for the slaughterhouse setup with a guy being knocked against the head like that of cattle and a girl being hung onto a meat-hook. During these scenes is when we really see just how brutal the killer really is and the horrific imagery of a human slaughterhouse.
"In Kim Newman's view, Hooper's presentation of the Sawyer family during the dinner scene parodies a typical American sitcom family: the gas station owner is the bread-winning father figure; the killer Leatherface is depicted as a bourgeois housewife; the hitchhiker acts as the rebellious teenager."-http://www.filmreference.com/Films-Str-Th/The-Texas-Chainsaw-Massacre.html
When the young adults stumble onto the cannibalistic family's house on the outside we see nothing that would indicate just how terrorfying things are on the inside. On the outside we see a beautiful white house surronded by sunflowers that looks like the type of thing Mr. and Mrs. Kent would proudly call home. When the characters we see decaying animals, furniture built from human remains, and a slaughterhouse set up. By 1975 the American dream was perceived dead by most and the cold war and social upheaval had lead American soceity to become cannibalistic.
As a slasher film it is certainly a classic and does do quite a few interesting things that keep the audience interested. The film still remains to be an affective horror film even to this day, but the film is not without its problems. The ending of the film seems to be rushed and a bit of a let down. The film would of been more affective if it had ended a few minutes earlier or a more ambigious ending.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is not based on a real event like many beleive, but is in fact based on the infamous serial killer Ed Gein. Psycho is another film that takes inspiration from Ed Geins and it's surprising to see that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was only released less than ten years after Psycho and already had the horror genre changed to a dizzingly degree. When Psycho came out we still have a film that has elegance and class that was in the golden age of Universal Monster film. In ten years time the horror genre had completley changed, we now had brutal,gritty films and films that oozed with violence and sex.
Today's slasher audience might find the film to be a bit slow in the beginning, but the film provides enough interesting on scene kills that keeps the audience intrigued. This film is also a cult classic and has defined the slasher genre and lead us to having great slasher films like Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm St. and of course Halloween.
Random Facts:
The farmhouse that was used in the film is now a restaurant in Kingsland, TX, with delicious food that is of the non-human variety. Check them out here:http://www.junction-house.com/
The actress whose character was hung up on a meat hook was actually held up by a nylon cord that went between her legs, causing a great deal of pain.
The human skeleton in the house at the end of the movie was a real human skeleton. They used a real one because a human skeleton from India is far cheaper then a fake plastic skeleton.
Film:
Rated: R
Time: 83 min.
Film Type: Midnight Slasher,
During this day and age the majority of films released are remakes or sequals.This is nothing new for the horror genre, but the 2000s seems to be big on remaking the horror classics for later decades so it was no big surprise that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre got a remake in 2003. This time the group of youths are traveling towards some kind of music festival that encounter when they encountered a traumatized woman on the side of the road that they decide to pick up and help. The woman while in the car shoots herself in the head and cause the young adults to flock to a town known as Travis County in order to find help. One by one the group is picked off untill there is only one left.
Less time is focused on th group of characters themselves and more focus is put upon the plot itself. The actions of the characters in the film seem to be a bit more understandable, but still seem to fall into same flaw most slasher films have with characters never really questioning their surroundings.
In the orginal the house and looks to be a plesant farmhouse on the outside and macabre horror on the inside. The reamake however shows no difference between the inside or outside and should have tipped off the travelers first hand that something is not right in Tavis County. Certain aspects of the original are not included in the film such as the big dinner scene or any mention of the family being cannibalistic.
In all honesty this remake is a couple steps above most horror remakes,but fails to live up to the original. If the 1974 Texas Massacre a semi-intelligent gory milestone, the remake is a mindless,but enjoyable popcorn flick. Even though the violence is amped a few notches, the death scenes seem to be a bit less memorable and this might be due to the fact that the film lack the grittiness of the original and had a cast of characters that weren't as likable as the orginal cast.This film is action packed from the very beginning and a bit more violent than the orginal,so today's slasher fans might find this version a bit more enjoyable.
