web
counter
 

darth-vader-face1.jpg
Blood and Monsters

The Weekly Burning Violin Column / Stipe42

Film Reviews | February 25, 2009 | Comments (39)


“In my experience, there are two types of monster. The first can be redeemed, or more importantly, wants to be redeemed. The second is void of humanity… cannot respond to reason or love.” - Giles, Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Bear with me, and we’ll get to blood and monsters.

Metaphors don’t work the way we’re taught in English classes. Every student rolls his or her eyes when told in no uncertain terms that Ahab’s quest symbolizes man’s struggle against fate, or that the suckage of Santiago’s life is an allegory of the suffering of Christ. Every student but the future English majors that is, but there is little we can do for their sort of degeneracy. If a metaphor must be explained, it is no longer a metaphor. Metaphors are not intellectual beasts, but emotional ones. They either punch you in the gut or they don’t.

Monsters are the original metaphor.

If god is the reason that cavemen made up for why the sun rises and sets, then monsters are the shadows flickering beyond the fire. They are the devil. It’s the terror of the unknown more than anything, and because we can’t see it, it can wear the faces we most fear. We map our fears onto the monsters. That’s why the monsters from decades past are so comical to us: the metaphors don’t resonate with our fears so it’s all just rubber masks and corn syrup blood. Our monsters would probably make them laugh too.

But don’t say that fifties horror films about pod people and giant insects are just about communist infiltrators and nuclear experiments. That’s like describing an orgasm as a spontaneous muscular spasm coupled to a spike in the brain’s serotonin levels. Yeah, you’ve got the definition down, but you left out the soul. To understand someone else’s horror, to understand any metaphors that don’t kick your soul in the same place, you have to work backwards from the solution. Don’t dismiss their horror as naive. Don’t just try to will yourself to be scared of pod people. Don’t think of communists, or McCarthy. Just imagine a society in which the concept of pod people is relatable on a visceral level. A society where you don’t trust your co-workers, your friends or family. A society in which anyone at any time could be accused of being a monster. A society in which everyone so constantly wears a mask, that you never know anyone’s true face. Anyone at any time could be replaced, and you would never know the damned difference because the mask is still smiling back at you. Even the mask you see in the mirror. Now that’s fucking horror.

Charlie Stross wrote once in one of his forwards that Cold War thrillers weren’t really thrillers: they were horror stories with the layers of metaphor stripped out. They were never really about the spies running around shooting and shagging, they were about the mushroom clouds popping cities like zits.

Horror isn’t about what is terrifying in the world; it’s about what is terrifying in us.

Now bite into this twist: When Star Wars came out, the best selling Halloween costume wasn’t Han or Luke or Leia. It was Vader. We want to be monsters, even as little kids.

I went through a phase (no not that one, I told you I was just curious) in which I was obsessed with monsters. Cartoons, books, movies: I suctioned onto anything that had monsters. I cobbled together armies of six inch tall monsters out of the chemical reeking cardboard of laundry detergent boxes, reams of form feed paper, tape and crayons.

From age five I had haunted the town library, all thousand square feet of it, and for this particular obsession found an enabling set of books that went on the permanent rotation. I was about seven, so “permanent” is a relative term. It was a set of old hardcovers that retold famous horror movies, with full page stills from the films and a few bits of text here and there to fill out the story. Dracula, Frankenstein, Wolfman … I knew Boris Karlof, Bela Lugosi and Lon Cheney by sight at age seven without ever having seen them in a film, or even knowing that they were actors. They were just the monsters.

I wanted to be the Wolfman. I sprinted through the bushes at the park across the street from my house, growling and snarling and doing my best imitation of stalking prey. I dug up wet sand in the playground and rubbed it on my arms because I thought it looked like fur the way it stuck to my skin. I’d imitate fangs by biting my upper lip with my lower teeth, because after careful practice in the mirror, I’d determined this was decidedly more fierce than top teeth biting the bottom lip.

It’s nothing short of a miracle that I didn’t end up in a juvenile psychiatric clinic.

Those shadows flickering beyond the fire don’t just scare us, they tempt us. We envy their freedom. We envy the ability to walk in the darkness untouched, even if the price is our souls.

It’s a hard wiring of the brain: metaphors are empathy. Neuroscience research of the last twenty years has revealed something technical that philosophers and poets have known for millennia: we experience what we see other people experience. Literally. When you see someone hurt, the pain center of your brain fires as if you yourself were in pain. When you see someone smile, you feel pleasure. But you don’t feel that way about an ant: they’re too alien, their pain is not your own. That connection is the basis of metaphor. We understand the world by mapping it onto what we can viscerally understand. Other people are us. Movies matter because we directly empathize with the characters and events. They lose us when the visceral connection is broken, when the collective metaphor of their fiction no longer sparks that fire in our brain.

But the grotesque twist of modern horror emerges from the fact that there are two sides to every horror movie: the monster and the victims. If it says something about us that we find horror in certain metaphors, it says even more that we find allure in certain horrors.

In fighting evil, you become evil. When you stare into the abyss, it stares back. We use that as a psychological crutch for why we identify with monsters. Dexter only kills killers. Jason, Freddie, and Lil’ Mikie Myers kill the sinners, assholes and idiots. Hannibal kills the rude and uncultured. Edward Cullen is the apex of this: the monster that isn’t a monster at all, the darkness not just dispelled but filled with teenage love, tofu and something to do with sparkles. The stories in which we identify with the monster always give us an out, an excuse for putting on the mask.

The torture porn genre is much maligned, but it has a fundamental and brutal honesty. It gives you the most terrible of both worlds: the identification with the monster without the tattered ethical excuse.

It’s all about empathy in the end. What terrifies us. Who we wish we were like. What we are scared of becoming.

Vampires, cold and calculating, charismatic as kings and dripping with the lust of eternal adolescence. Werewolves, their polar opposite, all animal fury and explosive violence, slaves to the moon.

My first memory is a dream of death. I’m three years old, sitting at the sliding glass door of the house where I grew up. I am alone in the house. Through the glass door I see not our back yard, but an endless plain of smoking hot sand. The ground shifts here and there, churning, and I know that if I open the door and go out, the invisible monsters beneath the sand will pull me under and I will become one of them.

I open the door anyway.

Stipe42 is the last scion of Norse warriors and the forbidden elder gods. He is a hopeless romantic who can be found wandering San Diego’s strip malls and suburbs looking for his mislaid soul and waiting for the revolution to come.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Pajiba Love 02/25/09 | Your Favorite Independent Films









Comments

Damn...... Stipe whatever it is you do for a regular paycheck, if it ain't writin', you in the wrong bidness, brother.

Posted by: dammitjanet at February 25, 2009 2:12 PM

Two for Two Stipe. An extremely insightful piece. I find that I can usually identify far more readily with the antagonist in any story, but as a kid, I always wanted to be an Autobot. Must be the fact I'm a public servant now.

Posted by: admin at February 25, 2009 2:22 PM

Stipe, you are batting .1000 with your last two entries. You may end up with your own wing in The Pajiba Hall of Fame.

Posted by: Spender at February 25, 2009 2:29 PM

This is a damn fine piece of work, and an interesting direction for the site.

Posted by: Samuel Erikson at February 25, 2009 2:30 PM

Nifty. I have often wondered why some people, including myself, are attracted to dark things such as monsters. Why are we drawn to stories of serial killers and murder? It's not just that train crash thing, there's something more to it. When I was younger, I thought I wanted to be a psychiatrist so I could interview and get inside the minds of serial killers. And while I'm still oddly fascinated by them, I feel a bit more fear at the idea. You say monster, I say human being with that darkness we all have - but worn on the sleeve.

Posted by: Cindy at February 25, 2009 2:33 PM

Well done Stipe! We fear what we do not understand.

And at the risk of popping a Metaphor Bubble, Frankenstein is my fave "monster". The book, not so much the movies. I took a Lit. class on it in college and there were all sorts of theories as to what it was a metaphor for. Womb envy, the march of science. All good. I was just blown away when the creature TALKED! No grunting behemoth here, no sir.

But it wasn't til my own son was born and I was in a production of Frankenstein that it hit me. To me, it's the horror that accompanies those two words: "I'm pregnant". To me, Frankenstein is about the irresponsible impulse of parenthood. The "Oh my god my life is over now!!". No matter how much one wants kids in the first place. There is always the urge to flee. "Orgasm, good! Responsibility, bad!!"

That's what I think anyway. And I don't actually hate my son, by the way. Now if I could just do something about all those angry damn villagers...

Posted by: Odnon at February 25, 2009 2:37 PM

I always thought monsters were a comforting thing, because it's easier to think about someone reduced of all humanity or feeling going around killing people than the fact that diarrhea kills tens of thousands (if not more) people in the world annually - more than even the most brutal, vicious or violent person could manage - and that lots of normal people kill people every day. Normal guys with normal jobs beat and shake their kids to death in front of their wives and girlfriends. Guys shoot their families. People lock up other people underground, for years.

Pyramid Head, Darth Vader, dreams of an evil we can point at, there. That's evil. That's what it looks like. It means something.

Real evil? Banality. A guy with a chart deciding how many deaths are fiscally justifiable. Real evil happens all the time for no reason whatsoever.

Posted by: twig at February 25, 2009 2:41 PM

God damn, that's one of the most insightful (and long) and interesting (and lengthy) pieces I've read on a blog EVER!

Posted by: AudioSuede at February 25, 2009 2:42 PM

Twig, quite right. True evil's either banal on its face (witness Eichmann, for whom Arendt coined the phrase "banality of evil" - his chief motivation wasn't sadism, but a desire to get promoted and recognized) or masquerading as something cute and innocuous, like Barney or George W Bush.

Posted by: The Wanderer at February 25, 2009 2:51 PM

I like the discussion material, less the Moses-descending-the-mount-with-new-wisdom approach.

Posted by: Recondite at February 25, 2009 2:59 PM

Well said, Stipe. Very insightful.

Posted by: Mattfactor at February 25, 2009 3:11 PM

At first I was a bit unsure of this seemingly, jagged off-shoot from the dailies that make Pajiba what it is. (I was thinking this in a Pajiba vacuum, it had nothing to do with Stipe42's writing, which is genuinely brilliant). Then it struck me that I wasn't giving Pajiba enough credit. What drew me to this site in the first place was its uniqueness. Pajiba is a diamond in the rough - A shining light in the bleakness of mediocre "review" sites and obsessive celebrity rags run by jagoffs like P.H. that ultimately rise to the top of the shit-lake because other jagoffs and their miserable relishment in Schedenfreud. It's actually quite cool to be visiting this site during one of its most profound evolutions into something even higher. Congratulations.

Posted by: dmo at February 25, 2009 3:29 PM

Well done, sir. I like that you're bringing the philosophy, and with flair. I need to mull this over. My mind keeps clicking back to Doctor Who - specifically, "The Impossible Planet" and "The Satan Pit."

Nice form.

Posted by: Nicole at February 25, 2009 3:38 PM

I like this:

Metaphors don't work the way we're taught in English classes. ... If a metaphor must be explained, it is no longer a metaphor. Metaphors are not intellectual beasts, but emotional ones. They either punch you in the gut or they don't.

Especially when compared to this:

It's a hard wiring of the brain: metaphors are empathy. Neuroscience research of the last twenty years has revealed something technical that philosophers and poets have known for millennia: we experience what we see other people experience. Literally. When you see someone hurt, the pain center of your brain fires as if you yourself were in pain. When you see someone smile, you feel pleasure. But you don't feel that way about an ant: they're too alien, their pain is not your own. That connection is the basis of metaphor. We understand the world by mapping it onto what we can viscerally understand.

See: poetry isn't what people like Blake and Whitman and Stevens (among the many poets who have commented on the art form) have said it is -- it's what neuroscientists say it is, and it turns out to mean, "whatever I feel like." That's how we make sense out of metaphor: through science.

Thank Angstrom we don't have to read for things like intellectual stimulation or philosophical enrichment anymore -- let alone actual wisdom. It will make the Graphic Novel the pinnacle of human literary achievement.

Posted by: hater from siloam springs at February 25, 2009 4:10 PM

Stipe where it says "The Weekly Burning Violin Column" is that to be taken literally? We get one of these a week?

If so, yay.

Posted by: thaf at February 25, 2009 4:16 PM

This is certainly a different piece from what I'm used to seeing at Pajiba, but that is not a bad thing.

In spite of your totally cruel and unfair dig at English majors, I like this one even more than your first. Kudos and laurels, man.

Posted by: Jerce at February 25, 2009 4:50 PM

Wow, this was beautifully written and so very thoughtful.

Thank you for writing this.

Posted by: Mebe at February 25, 2009 5:16 PM

Thank you all for the comments, I just wanted to drop in a response to thaf: Yes, Burning Violin will be running on Wednesdays, tell your friends and enemies. I'll try not to disappoint. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming...

Posted by: stipe42 at February 25, 2009 5:20 PM

this was excellent and i loved it. i would have sent you an email message instead of posting, but i wanted to add my voice to the mix.

Posted by: kara at February 25, 2009 6:17 PM

I'm loving these thus far, and had to delurk to say so. Hope they're all as good as the first two have been!

Posted by: Emily at February 25, 2009 7:18 PM

This whole monster argument is very subjective, even the argument about good and evil is very subjective. It is all in the eye of the beholder.

Posted by: Pookie at February 25, 2009 7:24 PM

This was excellent - I'm seriously looking forward to the next burning violin.

Posted by: Joe the Plumber at February 25, 2009 7:30 PM

This piece is about as deep as the sample scoop at 31 Flavors. "Monsters are the original metaphor." "We envy their freedom." WOW?! REALLY?! You came up with those revelations on your own? Jesus, you must be frickin' brillant!

Go back to writing your "Buffy" fan script.

Posted by: B-Unit at February 25, 2009 7:31 PM

This is a beautifully written essay... but I must say, as an English teacher, that your opinion of metaphor reflects more the inept or ineffectual teaching styles of your educators than the truths or value of literary analysis. If explaining metaphor is truly the death of metaphor, than your explanation of the social and cultural value of monsters destroys the wonder and emotion we feel when confronted with movie or literary monsters.

Rather, I think that part of the glory of metaphor is its exploration: what does this mean? Why would the author describe this using that? What does it make me think and feel? (Yes, emotion is as much a part of literary study as analysis, and no good teacher of literature would dare remove it unless they are a New Critic.) Upon my class reading, say, the poem "Torture" by Margaret Atwood, in which appears the image of a woman, mutilated and displayed like a flag, my students are hit with a visceral image that is no less powerful after they understand its intellectual implications. That's the true beauty of literature, and by extension, art - the duality of meaning and feeling.

On a personal note, I always loved vampires the best.

Posted by: Ariel at February 25, 2009 7:35 PM

Wow. Solid piece of writing, Stipe.

I always liked horror movies. They're great for trying on a different world than ours. It's why I like zombies so much. The question always comes up: what do you do at that moment? You'd like to think the stuff of heroes is in you, but is it?

What I find intriguing is that, as I get older, I find myself giggling at the "monsters" like Jason and Freddie. They feel like the newer versions of the old Dracula and Wolfman -- characters far more attractive than their prey. They are now replaced with far darker monsters -- Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men or (a classic) Henry Fonda's Frank in Once Upon A Time in the West. To me, apathy is the core of all evil; the denying of another person's humanity.

One of my favorite books of the last few years is World War Z (Hey, I said I like zombies). And what scared me most wasn't the zombies. It was the humans. Our reaction to the world falling apart -- chaos, brutality, anarchy, greed, etc. -- was far scarier than any undead ghoul.

Posted by: Fredo at February 25, 2009 7:37 PM

Jeebus, stipe, I don't have time to read all that. I just wanted to say I will kill anyone who tries to burn my girl's violin. That's a $6,000 instrument and I'm still paying on the damn thing. Bad enough she wrecks the car (twice) that still has 16 payments to go ...

Posted by: bucdaddy at February 25, 2009 8:17 PM

I agree with you Pookster.

Posted by: Cindy at February 25, 2009 8:52 PM

Thank you Cindy, I believe in being clear and concise. Stipe is the type of guy that likes the sound of this own voice, the nerve of that motherfucker tying to be philosophical like he done seen some shit. Where the fuck does Rowles find these guys?

Posted by: Pookie at February 25, 2009 9:15 PM

Then Pookie, you're gonna loooove this.

Nice idea on Pajiba's part to branch discussion out beyond entertaining pop-culture snark, and kudos to stipe42 for stepping up to the plate and swinging with gusto. Religious parables has been the prism through which we make sense of ourselves over the centuries, it follows that we turn to modern parables to do the same. Consider this a theological disagreement :-)

Metaphors are both intellectual and emotional beasts. Beyond exploring our own experiences, metaphor is also a way to communicate experiences to others who don't understand them. Take a resonant image, like a gigantic, rampaging destructive beast and draw a line to a subject that is otherwise alien to the audience. I may be far from the destruction and ruin of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but in Godzilla I at least have an avatar for the Japanese experience. It taps into empathy and emotional response as you say, but it also supplies an intellectual construct to inform or mislead it's audience.

I would also have said that both gods and monsters were the original metaphor. They have historically formed the moral poles around which societies organize themselves- Judeo-Christianity have the good/evil dichotomy, whereas Greeks and Romans preferred the Gods to be avatars of what they deemed the critical aspects of society- wisdom, war, the sea etc. God in the JC sense becomes a metaphor for whatever society (or at least it's leaders) consider desirable at a given time: can take down a mammoth with a spear, hates the redcoats and is handy with a musket, uptight, white, hetero, prefers Pat Boone to Little Richard etc- while the devil gets the threats of the day- rock and roll, teh gay marriage, swearing, blogs, prefers Pat Boone to Little Richard etc... Benign concepts- secondary metaphors?- sit on the spectrum between "nice and nasty" and concepts move between the poles as time passes and needs shift.

Even the concept of God and the devil changes depending on the context. In times gone by, Bush, Cheney & enablers might have reached for bible stories as their metaphor for "why we must invade Iran" (hang on- or did they?), but instead they opted the Hitler/Churchill/Chamberlain comparisons. Face it, when trying to win a secular society over to your desired position, Hitler is an easy modern Satan.

Sure, horror stories are the vehicles by which society explores it's nightmares, real or imagined. Some tap into universal experience eg Alien and procreation, Freddie Krueger and sleep/dreams/loss of control, while others relate to horrific world events, such as Godzilla: Hiroshima, Vietnam: Texas Chainsaw Massacre, torture porn: Abu Ghraib, etc. (I regard torture porn as a failure in this respect, but more later). The long term effectiveness of a particular monster depends on either a: the universality of the concept (The facehugger remains as shitscary as ever while the Blob, in yours truly's humble opinion is hilariously camp) or b: the degree to which the real world event still resonates in societal history- eg the Nazi Holocaust.

I love the show Dexter, but that love has nothing to do with the monstrous aspects of the central character's life, but the way in which he reconciles the with everyday- home, work, the conflict between what he desires and what he has to do to remain a functioning member of society- all aspects I can easily relate to. If the focus of the show were his killing without emphasis on such factors, Dexter would simply be an unsympathetic, sociopathic vigilante with a short shelf-life. The triumph of the show is not how it allows me to identify with the monstrous aspects of his personality, but how it uses the relatable, every day aspects of his life to counterbalance it and make sense of his worldview.

Torture Porn: This has not much to do with stipes42's column just a general whinge

Cinematic depictions of torture like Clooney's manicure in Syriana take the notion of the wilful infliction of pain and allows me a level of understanding as to how anyone- even I- could be drawn into it. And always, my empathy lies with the sufferer rather than the torturer, a trait I also hope I share with others. It is this empathy that the "horror" of TP plays on.

On a superficial level, torture porn acknowledges the plight of it victims, but only as a means to amplify its effect. Lets face it, it just wouldn't be the same if an unconscious or drugged victim just lay there and took it, would it? (something I think Dexter tactily acknowledges in it's muted depictions of ritual murder) But where, TP utterly fails is in to examine the sadistic mindset of the torturer in any more than the most basic, bogeyman way. Movies like Hostel may pay lip service to psychopathology, but we're talking maybe, unscientifically 5% of screen time here, otherwise we're just expected to believe he was born bad. The remaining unscientific 95% of the time it chooses to revel in the sadistic acts themselves until the audience is so visually bombarded it is rendered emotionally numb and what is the value of that? Does the simulating drowning of water-boarding seem like such an outrage after you have watched someone degraded and fed the pureed guts of a fellow human being?

What is exactly achieved by serving up characters as meat without trying to explore both mindsets? Wouldn't that be genuinely horrific to see how such things might manifest in the real world? The great irony is that the torturers mindset is reflected instead by the filmmakers and not the onscreen protagonists. While maybe of academic interest, it's a big fat artistic fail.

This isn't really building to any point in particular. Sorry for the waffle, but I'm in the golden haze before month end hits and I have to get to work again :-)

Posted by: Dave Shepherd at February 25, 2009 10:20 PM

Hmmm, nice try, but it's kinda like pointing to one point in a continuum and saying "this is where it starts". Horrors may exist in our minds but they also exist in the real world and each spurs the other.

I would also regards "Gods and monsters" as the original metaphor rather than monsters alone, as they are typically the moral poles around which semi-civilised societies arrange themselves. God (in the Judeo-Christian sense) becomes the metaphor for whatever society considers desirable at any given time: can take down a mammoth with a spear, hates the redcoats and is handy with a musket, uptight, white, hetero, prefers Pat Boone to Little Richard etc- while the devil gets the perceived threats of the day- rock and roll, gay marriage, swearing, blogs, prefers Pat Boone to Little Richard etc... More benign concepts sit on the spectrum between "good and evil" and move between these poles as time passes and the needs of society shift. Personally I'm looking forward to the day when oil becomes the pus of the devil and the righteous feel sufficiently motivated to seek alternatives, but I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: Dave Shepherd at February 25, 2009 10:33 PM

Fantastic work, stipe. Keep up the awesome.

Posted by: figgy at February 25, 2009 10:37 PM

ah, suck it Pookie (that'd be kinda interesting actually...gotta meditate on that a bit) et al. who get all riled up against the writer for offering a pretty depthy take on a subject...even if it directly contradicts your views - just put 'em on the table like he did. I really like these, Stipe and I'm glad you're doing it weekly. I especially like the idea of one of these pissing me off sometime...

Posted by: replica at February 25, 2009 10:57 PM

Beatiful. Simply beautiful. I'll just forward this link whenever someone bitches me out for liking horror. Saves me the trouble of spontaneously coming up with just the right words.

Posted by: Robert at February 25, 2009 11:13 PM

oops, just realised I double posted the directors cut and the edited highlights. Is that a first?

Posted by: Dave Shepherd at February 25, 2009 11:50 PM

Stipe, you must live off the 15. Anything east of the 5 is full of monsters. And meth.

Posted by: L.O.V.E. at February 25, 2009 11:59 PM

Dave Shepherd: Please consider getting your own blog, as that was entirely too fucking long for a comment section. Seriously, we already had to suffer through one TMax.

Posted by: I Love Beets at February 27, 2009 11:12 AM

yeah, I figured that after previewing but stupidly hit "post" instead of "back" and didn't shut the browser in time (hence the abbreviated post below it). "Epic" isn't my usual setting, but I had too much time on my hands and got suckered into replying in kind. Future responses to these columns won't be so detailed.

Posted by: Dave Shepherd at February 27, 2009 6:08 PM

You're a damn good writer stripe42, I wish I could write as well as this.

Posted by: George at February 28, 2009 8:51 PM

I just had time to read this, finally, and I have but these things to say:

stipe, you are amazing. Keep it up, my friend. I am enjoying. Also, "weekly"? Yay!

Dave Shepard, I appreciated the detail of your response, in spite of its length.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at March 1, 2009 1:01 AM