Showing posts with label evil children. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evil children. Show all posts

Saturday, March 07, 2009

Movies: The kids are all fright.

Director Narciso Ibáñez Serrador's otherwise brilliant 1976 flick Who Can Kill a Child? starts off with a near fatal misstep: a tedious montage of Twentieth Century atrocities, all played out under a droning and pedantic voice, that informs us that children – won't somebody please think of the children! – are the real victims of the foolish violence of the adult world. We get footage of the Holocaust and the Vietnam War, among other things. Of course, there's no mention of the uncounted number of children that died in Spain's Civil War or the estimated 31,000 children forcibly taken into government custody and brought up in Spain's state-run indoctrination camps during Franco's reign (which had ended a year prior to the flick, so continuing fear of reprisals seems a less likely explanation for the omission than good ol' moral cowardice). First and foremost, this unnecessary lecture is painfully trite. The death of every victim in any of these various violent infernos of ideologically-driven stupidity is tragic. Did we need Serrador to remind us of this? Second, the montage is meant to serve as a sort of exposition for what follows, suggesting that we're going to see a Spartacus Jr. political revolt against oppression. While the idea is, in and of itself, not a bad premise for a story. (In fact, one of my favorite punk bands made a brilliant, if short, career out of just that premise.) The problem is that it doesn't apply to the movie Serrador made in any meaningful way as the director relies entirely on a supernatural explanation for what happens in the flick. Last, and by no means least, it serves as a sort of smart-ass answer to the question posed in the title. Who can kill a child? Apparently everybody. It seems to happen all the time. To be fair, even Serrador admits, in the interview provided in the special features of the DVD edition I watched, that he regrets opening with the montage. He feels that it should have come at the end of the flick. Rather, it should have stayed on the cutting room floor.

The first 10 minutes or so are awfully stupid, but survive the browbeating intro and you'll be treated to one of the few genuine gems of 1970s era Euro-horror. Uncanny and unsettling, stylish and well constructed, grotesque but ultimately humane, Who Can Kill a Child? partakes of the genre- and taste-punishing ethos of the best of grindhouse era horror from over the pond without demanding its viewers to dumb down or sacrifice solid storytelling for vapid stylistic flourishes.

The plot is simple, but well played. A British couple, the angular and excitable Tom and the very preggers Evelyn, are on holiday in Spain. Despite Ev's 'bout-to-pop-ness, Tom is determined that they avoid the crowds and make their way to a remote island he visited as a student researcher many years ago. Tom and Evelyn rent a boat and make their way out to the island only to find it semi-deserted. A handful of creepily silent kids watch the docks and roam the streets, but otherwise the island's principle town seems dead. Now, the average French couple or pair of vacationers from Italy would perhaps decide that a town completely devoid of adult life was a bad sign and get worried. But Brits don't give up on vacations. Mustn't grumble, after all. T & E go to find grub and shelter and, after some odd encounters with the local children, end up in a local hotel.

I don't think it quite qualifies as a spoiler to say that the children, evidencing some sort of hive mind telepathy, have off all the adults in the town and taken over. Tom learns this when he sees a handful of kids using an old man as a piñata. Literally. Only instead of a stick, they're using a sickle. Shocked and confused, Tom tries to keep a lid on things until he can think of a way out (another display of the Brits' stiff upper lip approach to demonic children and other disasters). After all, these are Spanish children – perhaps trussing up an on old man and taking whacks at him with an edged weapon is simply something these swarthy types do. It's Spain after all. Half Moor, isn't it? Barely even European. Sadly, Tom's "what problem?" approach is undermined by the appearance of a local adult who has been holed up in the hotel. Senor Exposition explains that, one night, the children just poured out into the streets. Laughing all the while, as if it were a big game, the children went from building to building and slaughtered all the adults.

The rest of the movie involves Tom and Ev's desperate and violent effort to escape the island while the children, moving in otherworldly unison, try to stop them.

The visuals are gorgeous. The film's got an overexposed, sun-bleached look that reminded me of Hooper's superlative Texas Chain Saw Massacre. The empty streets and faded buildings, though shot with a clean and almost workman-like efficiency, give the flick as strange sense of alienation. This mysterious island of children is part of the same Spanish sun-oppressed landscape one gets glimpses off behind the melting clocks and distorted humanity of a Dali painting. By keeping his children silent and cryptic, in the best Village of Damned tradition, Serrador doesn't allow his flick to suffer from crappy child acting. Instead, he uses his evil children as a swarm. The monster children in this movie have the same overwhelming and relentless malevolence we get from Hitchcock's birds. One particular scene in which a silent mass of hive-minded children slowly descend on a small seaside home in an eerily organized fashion is a standout that will imprinted in my brain for ages.

The acting is low key and somewhat silted, but way that starts out as charming and becomes a significant part of the emotional heft of the flick. It's somewhat like watching the cast of one of those PBS Mystery Brit-imports suddenly take a turn towards the weird and Lovecraftian. Ultimately, underplaying the whole thing works wonders. Tom and Evelyn always seem a little wooden, like to people playing at a marriage. As a viewer, you wonder whether this is just slightly lifeless acting. But, when the fit hits the shan, so to speak, their marriage proves to be a bit of a sham, in a painfully polite and earnest way. Tom and Ev care about one another, they want to do well by one another, and when they chips are down, they want to escape together. What they don't do is love one another. In one key scene, the couple is trapped in a cell, temporarily safe but also hopeless surrounded. The two protag's collapse, one on a plank bed and the other leaning against a wall until he slowly slides into a seated position on the floor. The viewer waits for Tom to get up and comfort his wife. But that moment doesn't come. More so than any of the violence or gore, it’s a devastating moment. Even the film's most horrific moment, in which viewers are treated to a truly novel and horrific interpretation of the term "inside job," is underplayed to great effect.

Even with it's lame intro, I highly recommend Who Can Kill a Child?. It is hard to imagine a better fusion of Euro-horror technique and classic "weird tale" style storytelling. Good stuff.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Movies: Ils communication.

Them, the 2006 francophone home invasion shocker (Ils in its native tongue) and not the 1954 classic about giant mutant ants attacking Los Angeles (though both flicks do feature extensive tunnel systems in their final scenes), is film whose modest ambitions pay off in effective and pleasing ways. Using really brilliant sound design, a wonderful cavernous mansion set, an elegantly simple plot, and a couple of game actors, the director/writer duo David Moreau and Xavier Palud deliver on of the best of the recent crop of French horror flicks, and they do it without clumsy bids for sociological relevance (I'm looking at you Frontier(s)) or needlessly "arty" inscrutability (and now I'm looking at you: last fifteen minutes of High Tension).

The story is simple. A young French ex-pat couple, writer Lucas and French teacher Clementine, spends the weekend in their large, but decaying country home. Before they get in even one good night's sleep, a gang of mysterious evil children begins terrorizing them. For next hour (the film clocks in at a svelte 77 minutes), Lucas and Clementine run for their lives, pursued relentlessly by these faceless attackers through home, forest, and what appears to be an abandoned underground bunker.

That's it. Pretty simple.

The pleasure of watching Them is similar to the pleasure one gets watching the performance of a great athlete: you're watching excellence within a well known and narrowly defined field of endeavor.

Despite title cards that warn viewers the film is based on a real story (and, apparently, is was loosely inspired by an actual crime), the plot is ruthlessly focused on Lucas and Clementines' long, brutal night, avoiding any exposition or tangents that produce drag. Even the characterization is economical. There are a few scenes that quickly establish Lucas and Clementine as a happy, functional couple and that is that. What more do we need to know? Even the overall narrative structure is bare bones. There's a disposable prelim round kill – a mother/daughter team gets dispatched pre-credits to establish that the villains are no joke – and then we get down to business. At the end of the flick, there's a close out scene with a couple of title cards to sort of tie up some lose ends, and then that's all folks. In a way, the film's structure reminded somewhat of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Not that the plots are similar or there's any theme or tone connections – in fact, if children didn't play such as sinister role in the film, it would barely score a PG-13 – instead, one gets the sense that the film gives us a little prep, then shots through the scares, and then says, "Hey, I'm done." It doesn’t conclude so much as just stop. I don't mean it as a negative criticism. It's actually refreshing. In fact, I think the movie could even have done without the last title cards filling in some details.

Visually, the film is a slick production. It has the richly textured feel that has become the dominant visual style of contemporary horror. Somebody recently described the style as "dreary," but I don't see it that way. In contrast to the bright, high-contrast colors of '70s Euro horror or the muted we-know-we-end-up-on-VHS palette of '80s slasher flicks, the colors in films like Them form deep pools of warmth or darkness covered over in an a subtle gloss – like the worlds depicted in these films are always just seconds away from a thunder storm. This gives the sets an anxious beauty that heightens the sense of detail rather than dulls it. Combined with an almost obsessive eye for set design, it gives the viewer the impression that the characters in these films live in world of accumulated detail, rather than a world designed to make a single artistic statement. It's Hergé by way of Se7en rather than the seductive 1970s art-house nightmares of the Euro set or pseudo-verite of something like TCM. The direction is confident, though the characters sometimes get lost in murky lighting and the result is not tension but eye strain. I would also add that there were some scenes in which the spatial relationships within the house were lost on me: Are we on the roof now? Is this the greenhouse we saw earlier? Overall, though, the directors manage to keep everything lucid, which is no small task considering that this movie is pretty much a 60 minute long game of cat and mouse.

The real technical achievement is the film's sound design. For most of the movie, the kiddie cult that brings our protagonists so much woe exists mainly as a series of slashing flashlight beams and a web of shouts, clicks, whistles, and other signals. It turns them from a gang of kids into a sort of airborne toxic threat – they don't surround the house so much as settle on it. It is genuinely brilliant. Possibly the best use of sound in a horror flick I've seen since Cloverfield (though considerably less deafening). The effect was slight dampened by my lack of a home theater, though viewers with the full-on sound set-up are in for a treat.

Them is arguably too slight a film to be a classic. It won't shift how you feel about the genre and it's not likely to haunt your dreams. But it is solidly suspenseful and delivers fully on everything it promises. It's hard to find fault with that.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

LOTT-D: The kids are all fright!

The latest League of Tana Tea Drinkers Roundtable is up. The topic under discussion is "evil kids." From The Bad Seed to The Ring and all points in-between, league members opine on the terrifying tots that have been the pro-choice movement's greatest cinematic mascots. I'm a little sad to see that Milo, the titular homicidal demon child of the 1998 fright flick, didn't get a shout out. Still, you can't have everything, Screamers and Screamettes. Where would you put it all? Besides, the quality of the League's write-ups more than compensates for this otherwise unforgivable oversight. Check it out.

Vault of Horror discusses why the destruction of childhood, both literally and metaphorically, remains horror's biggest and most strangely attractive taboo.

Kindertrauma, our resident specialist on all things small and creepy, discusses the two major categories of evil child and the impact they have on us.

Gospel of the Living Dead focuses in on zombie children.

Blogue Macabre takes a close look at how evil children play to our conscious and unconscious anxieties.

TheoFantastique looks at the political implications of a classic "evil child" episode of The Twilight Zone.

And, last but not least:

Unspeakable Horror gets a little Freudian on us and discusses how he's used the concept of the "evil child" in his comic book work.

If you're anything like your humble horror host, then you didn't need another reason to hate children. But, better safe than sorry, right?