Fast Zombies Suck

First off, here is a pre-emptive apology to all my Christian and Jewish friends.  Hopefully, all is forgiven when I say, Halloween is the best holiday of the year. Halloween is the best because there is something for everyone, no matter their background or upbringing.  As a kid, you dress up in cool costumes, go door to door, and you get free candy.  You get candy because of a veiled threat to a total stranger, Trick 'r Treat? Choose wisely.  Halloween is a great holiday for adults as well.  You still get to wear costumes, you go out looking for a good time, and you get...let's just call it candy. 

The current celebration of Halloween is a blending of pagan rituals and urban traditions from 1920's America.  The festival of Sam Hain, was a celebration of the gathering of the harvest before winter and a night when the realms between the living and the dead were nonexistant.  People dressed up in costumes to fool evil spirits and they celebrated all night long.  Hence, wearing costumes on Halloween.  The tradition of going door to door to receive candy, is an American tradition from the 1920's.  Essentially, inner city kids (mostly orphans) would vandalize homes on Halloween, which was then known as Devil's Night.  Finally tiring of this yearly tradition, a small community in New York City placed treats outside their homes on Halloween.  The kids were so delighted that they did not vandalize homes that placed treats outside of them.  This idea spread across the country and eventually became a way for communities to come together.  Hence, the practice and why it is referred to as, Trick 'r Treat.  The real question is why we do we still celebrate this holiday with the vigor that we do?

Many scholars and horror enthusiasts, Clive Barker comes to mind, theorize that it is the one night of the year when you do not have to be yourself.  You can become that person you always wanted to be, you can let out your inner demon or animal, and it is completely acceptable.  For men, you can become the hero you worshipped as a kid, or that dark character you wish you could be like.  For women, it seems they can become the girl that every father wishes their daughter would not turn into.  The reason for the holiday could be something more simpler.  Simply put, maybe people just enjoy being scared. 

There is nothing like a good scare, simply because we do not experience that emotion as often as other emotions, like happiness or sadness.  One of the ways to experience this emotion is by watching horror films.  This is especially true during Halloween.  This has also become more socially acceptable with the increase in production of such films and television events like AMC FearFest.  Horror movies are a good source for feeling fear but they are so much more.  These types of movies can have greater social context for where we are as a society and the fear that is the uncertainty of the future.  Many film critics argue that there is no social context in horror films.  They reason that these movies exist to corrupt our youth with scenes of extreme violence and nudity.  I respectfully disagree.  Two films, provide social context of the times in which they were made and they still relate to this day and age.  Both still have the raw power to shock us and to make us think.  It helps that they are two of the genres earliest examples and set off a wave of imitators and amateurs, but have never been equaled.  John Carpenter's Halloween and George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead.

John Carpenter's Halloween (1978) is credited with creating the modern slasher genre of horror films.  This film spawned hundreds of other movies and dozens of copy cat slashers, ranging from Jason Voorhees to Freddy Krueger.  The movie takes place over the course of a single halloween night and is about an escaped mental patient (Michael Myers), who comes home.  The Shape (as he is credited at the end of the movie) has no real motive or desires and is considered to be evil in a physical form.  The location of evil is a constant theme in horror movies. There is  a social context to this movie but it is not what everyone thinks.  Many people credit this film with creating the horror movie rules.  These morality rules determine who lives and who dies. They have governed every slasher film from the early eighties to the late nineties.   Anyone who is a horror movie fan or has seen Scream (1997), knows what I am talking about.  Most people believe that these rules are derived from John Carpenters Halloween and this is the social context of that movie.  What most people do not know is that this assumption is erroneous.  In Scream, a character in the movie, Randy, spells out these rules to his friends while watching Halloween at a party.  The rules are, if you want to live, you cannot consume alcohol or drugs and you cannot have sex.  These are the sure signs that you are going to die (in a movie that is).  At the beginning of Halloween,  Laurie Strode, played by Jamie Lee Curtis, is being driven home from school by her friend Annie.  During this drive, both of them are smoking weed.  A clear violation of the rules, yet, Laurie survives at the end.  Annie is the first teen killed in the movie but she does not violate any of the rules, unless you count the one that Laurie breaks as well.  Examining the horror movie rules is necessary because this sets a precedent for every horror movie that followed Halloween. 

This set a precedent for every future movie because it establishe the rule, which is if you behave badly, you will be killed.  That was not set up with Halloween nor was it ever the intention of the director.  John Carpenter states, in an interview, that his assignment for this movie was to make a slasher film about babysitters who are stalked and murdered by a psychopath.  The adding of Halloween and the creation of Michael Myers is all him, but he never intended for there to be a morality clause to this movie.  The reasoning behind the deaths in this movie helps to create the social context.  This was the first movie to examine a phenomenon that sociologists refer to as, the white flight of suburbia.  This is a phenomena that describes the mass exodus of people (mostly whites) from cities to the suburbs.  The reasons vary as to why, but they come down to a better living condition for families and safety.  Carpenter points out that all the teens who are killed were so assured of the safety of the suburbs and believed that nothing would change in their little town.  This belief did not allow them to see that something strange was going on.  Namely, that a killer was skulking around the neighborhood.  This illusion, as he describes this feeling, is at fault because the location of evil can be anywhere.  The ending to Halloween is one of the great cliffhangers in modern cinema.  Michael disappears after he has been shot and flung off a balcony.  Not because of a sequel, but because Carpenter wanted people to go home (hopefully to the suburbs) that night, and wonder if Michael had followed them home. 

George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead (NOTLD) is a true classic and the harbinger of the social revolution phase in horror movies.  NOTLD is not a zombie movie, in the traditional definition of the phrase.  For one, the word zombie is never mentioned in the movie.  Secondly,  the real danger in the movie is not the living dead, but the people who cannot trust each other long enough to get out of this situation.  The living dead are slow moving and in a constant state of decay.  They are not the real threat, there is something more dangerous out there.  Romero says, "Our worst enemies are the people next door".  The living dead is a metaphor for a vast upheaval in the social order.  The reason why the dead coming back to life represents this change is because Romero decided that this would be the scariest thing to deal with, the dead coming back to life and they have a craving for living flesh.  In an interview he states, "My movies are about people and how they deal with upheaval, how they don't deal with it, how they deal with it badly, and even how they deal with it stupidly".  Stupidity reigns supreme in this movie.  A group of people are trapped in a rural house and their deaths are not the fault of the dead, but of the living.  At the end, the lone survivor (a black character) emerges from the cellar and thinks that the worst is over.  He is shot in the head by a posse member, who is led by a redneck sheriff.  The final images of the movie are the black character being dragged by hooks and thrown into a bonfire. 

If you break down NOTLD, the movie is a metaphor for change and how people deal with this change.  Change is frightening and people, generally, do not want to deal with or accept it.  Some people, have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.  Dawn of the Dead is the sequel to NOTLD, and was remade by Zach Snyder in 2004.  Romero's critique of the movie,"the first twenty minutes are spectacular but the rest of the movie turned into a video game".  The zombies can run and are ruthless killing machines.  They are the threat, the people trapped in a shopping mall, are not.  There is no more social context, just a straight up survival story that looks awesome. 

Halloween and horror movies are much more than they seem.  The location of evil can be anywhere and our worst enemies can be those we least suspect.  They can provide a clearer view of where we are as a society and possibly, where we are going.  This year, have fun, be merry, and realize that fear, is not such a bad thing. 

Tagg You're It!!

 

            This morning I was forced out of bed at 6:30 a.m. because of my dogs.  They were done sleeping and naturally assumed that I was too.  Fast forward to 6:45, both have eaten breakfast and are back to sleep in their beds in the living room.  I decide to make the most of this early morning by having a cup of coffee and watching the news on NBC.  During this time, I started to read that day’s issue of the Dallas Morning News (fine I was reading the comics).  Halfway through Dilbert, I overhead a story that almost convinced me to “Irish” up my coffee. 

            Tuesday night was the second Presidential debate between Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama.  Don’t worry, this isn’t about the debate as much as it is about the aftermath.  After the debate, Tagg Romney, Mitt and Anne Romney’s oldest son, commented that he would like “to take a swing” at President Obama for calling his father a liar during the debate.  Tagg and his defenders later claimed that he was joking.  Joking or not, this seems like an overreaction from a nancy schoolboy.  Now that I think about it, both Tagg and his father are prep school graduates. I guess being spoiled and entitled runs in the family.  My mind tends to wander, so let’s get back on track.  Tagg’s reaction is amusing and upsetting for two reasons:

1.       Not once, during the debate, did the President call Mitt Romney a liar. 

There were a few statements made by Romney which the President labeled as not true.  Some people may call this splitting hairs, but there is a difference in saying a statement is not true and calling someone a liar.  This would be like saying there is no difference between a ham sandwich and a pizza because both are made primarily from bread.  Let’s be clear, the President did not call Mitt Romney a liar.  I am calling Mitt Romney a liar.  Lawrence O’Donnell has called Romney a liar. 

Romney stated twice in two weeks before the debate that he would completely defund Planned Parenthood, but at the debate he said that is not true and can we move on?  Romney has been running for President since 2008 and his one consistent policy has been lowering taxes for the wealthy to the tune of a 5 trillion dollar tax cut.  If you watched the debate, it would seem like he never said that, let alone if he has a plan on how to pay for that tax cut.  This is a man who switched his position on abortion, twice, in one week and oddly enough it was before the debate.  In the interest of time and sanity, let’s move on to the second reason.

2.       What Tagg said about the President is disrespectful.

This may not seem like a big deal but it is further evidence of an endemic pattern of disrespect towards this president.  The amount of disrespect that this President has been shown is distasteful and unprecedented. I am a student of history and political history and I have never seen or read of another President being treated this way, either in print or to his face.  Rep. Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina), during the President’s State of the Union address, stood up and screamed, “You lie”!  That had never happened before. Ever.  Can you imagine if you some backwater Congressman had done that to Lyndon Johnson? He would have leapt off the stage and yanked his ears off his head!  What can you expect a South Carolinian to say when some uppity President is addressing him?  Let’s not forget that little runway encounter between the President and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer when she stuck her finger in his face as they were having a conversation about immigration and border security.  Her defense was that she felt threatened by Barack Obama.  Threatened?  The only time I hear the “I felt threatened” defense, is when police officers try to justify shooting unarmed suspects.  Those are only the most public displays of disrespect and there are countless more, including the “Don’t Re-Nig in 2012” bumper stickers.

            Tagg Romney appears to be just like his father, in the sense that he didn’t earn his fortune and accolades through hard work.  Scratch that.  According to Conservatives, he did earn everything he has and he is also a job creator.  That is probably why he felt so disrespected by the way the President was speaking to his father.  Nobody wants to be told that they did not earn something, especially if they really did not.  Tagg is a graduate of Brigham Young University and Harvard Business School (his father is an alumni of both).  At one point he was head of marketing for the LA Dodgers and Reebok, Vice President of a pharmaceutical company, an equity consultant for various companies, and currently is a top campaigner for his father’s presidential run.  Adding insult to injury, years ago his father made him the primary benefactor of a family trust worth 100 million dollars.  I mention his pedigreed resume because it illustrates everything that money can buy; degrees, standing, and prestige.  In Tagg’s case, the one thing money can’t buy is class but I guess that runs in his family and most politicians. 



Republican Sex Kitten

            Last weekend, I was fortunate enough to attend Austin City Limits (ACL).  A three day long music festival with dozens of bands spread out over 8 stages.  Bands such as the Red Hot Chili Peppers, the Black Keys, Iggy Pop & the Stooges (yeah I didn’t know Iggy was still around either), the Civil Wars, and Weezer were just a fraction of the lineup.  Listening to old, new, and obscure music groups is only part of the fun.  ACL offers other amenities such as walking around in an unforgiving sun all day, torrential down pour of rain which turned Zilker Park into a muddy cow pen, smelly hippies, a constant cloud of smoke which reminded me of my art teachers office, consuming massive amounts of alcohol, and eating food that a county fair in Missouri wouldn’t sell to the public.  In short, best weekend ever.  The capstone to this forty-eight hour odyssey of boozing and no sleep was the mad dash back to Dallas which started at 4:30 a.m. Monday morning.  My friend's lame excuse for this twilight drive was that he had to be at work by nine o’clock.  I made the drive from Austin to Dallas in 2 ½ hours probably because all Texas Highway Patrol officers were still in bed.  To say I was a wreck by the time I made it home is an understatement, however, I decided to act like a champ and save going to bed until that night.  After washing the smell of THC out of my hair, I decided to browse through my DVR list.  What I ended up watching was last Friday’s episode of Real Time with Bill Maher.  I admit to being a habitual watcher of that show.  The panel looked like an interesting group but it was his interview before the panel that caught my attention and the ire of this writing.  Bill’s guest interview that week was none other than Republican Sex Kitten, Ann Coulter. 

            Ann was there to spew out more of her unintelligent drivel and by that I mean she was promoting her new book.  The central theme of her book is that racism died after the 1970’s and only exists as a made-up attack plan when the liberals on MSNBC can’t find anything else to lob at Republicans.  Trust me, you can find everything you need to slander Republicans from the real things they say and do every day.  That’s not what raised my blood pressure.  What set me off was when Ann delivered the standard attack quote that Republicans have been throwing at President Obama for the last two years.  Obama is the most divisive and liberal president in our nation’s history.  With no sleep and on the edge of sanity, I snapped.  I’m not trying to give the impression that I was Bruce Willis upon realization that my father’s watch was not in my suitcase.  I snapped in the nerdist way, I started collecting facts and gathering my thoughts so I could write out my frustration.  This may seem like nothing to get excited over but then again, you probably don’t know me very well.  Our most divisive president?  Holy hyperbole Batman!  Let’s take a look at some real divisive Presidents.

            James Buchanan, President from 1856-1860.  Historians label him as the one person who not only hastened but guaranteed the coming of the U.S. Civil War or as Conservatives like to call it, the war for states to exercise the right to buy human furniture.  Warren Harding, President from 1920-1923.  His administration was so corrupt that his entire cabinet at one point was under indictment.  His own Attorney General and his allies in Congress were caught stealing money from the Veteran’s Bureau after the end of World War One.  Harding survived impeachment proceedings because he died in 1923 at Christmas time.  Funny story, he was in a posh hotel in San Francisco with one of his mistresses and suffered a massive stroke after having sex.  He’s the only President with the distinction of coming and going at the same time.  No discussion of divisive Presidents would be complete without mentioning Richard Milhouse Nixon.  The only Republican president with fewer invitations to political events than George W. Bush.  Nixon ran on a platform for the immediate end of American involvement in Vietnam and he had a secret plan, that he could not share with anyone until he was in office.  Why does that sound so familiar?  I’m sure it will come to me later.  And boy did he keep his promise! By way of increasing the war in Vietnam, bombing Cambodia, and invading Laos.  Forty percent of all U.S. casualty rates happened during Nixon’s first term.  On top of all that, you had the Watergate Scandal and other little hijinx such as conspiracy to murder journalists.  Obama wishes he had the nuts to act like these wacky presidents. 

            Now, what about that dirty little word that Obama keeps getting labeled with?  No, not that one you racist! I mean liberal!  Obama has two liberal acts.  One is Obamacare, which won’t be enacted until 2014 but according to Conservatives we should all be speaking Chinese right now.  The second one is when he and Joe Biden came out in support of gay marriage.  Notice, all they did was come out in support.  I doubt they will do anything to make it reality.  The President, who can be labeled the most liberal ever, surprisingly, is Lyndon Johnson.  Just look at his legislative accomplishments: The Voting Rights act, the Civil Rights act, the Higher Education Act, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Housing Reform Act.  The Voting Rights and Civil Rights acts were so divisive that it changed the political landscape of the country.  Johnson remarked to an aide, “You know what we have done? We just handed the south to the Republican Party for the rest of our lives”.  From reconstruction to the 1960’s, the south was Democratic Party all the way and now it has become a safe haven that is staunchly Republican. 

            Ann Coulter's writings have something in common with the political speeches of Rick Santorum.  You don't need facts if you believe in your heart that what you are saying is right.  Keep things in perspective and would it kill you to read a book every now and then?