SIX HOURS OF MY LIFE I WILL NEVER GET BACK: THINGS I LEARNED FROM WATCHING THE HOSTEL TRILOGY IN A SINGLE SITTING

There are moments in my life where I make extremely unwise decisions and I will be the last to admit it when I've made a mistake.  However, this is an instance where I will scream from the rooftops how much of an idiot I am.  I'm one of those horror nerds that likes to watch franchises all at once.  When it's Halloween, I'm that asshole that stays inside all day to watch every single Halloween film ever made in a row.  Thanks to the wonderful feature of FEARnet and a hell of a chest cold, my dumbass thought it would be wise to watch all three HOSTEL films, one right after another.  This is the part where my Sassy Gay Friend should pop in and ask me to "look at my life, look at my choices," because this was definitely one of my more idiotic decisions.  I'm not going to sugarcoat it. I hated HOSTEL when it first came out. I really, really hated it. Now before anyone makes a comment about me being a girl or not being able to handle the gore, you can take those stupid comments and put them in your pocket.  I love me some gore, but it needs to have a purpose and it needs to have motivation behind it.  I felt the original HOSTEL was  nothing more than gratuitous violence that rested solely on gross-out factor and provided little to no storyline credibility.  Hoping that maybe Eli Roth could retain some of his Cabin Fever glory in the sequel, I watched that.  I'll be honest, I turned it off about a half hour into  it. I just couldn't do it.  One would think that after that I'd be done with it all but little miss "glass-half-full" over here thought that maybe seeing them all at once would be the better choice.  Boy, was I wrong.  Just like any messy breakup, instead of being upset about all of the wasted time it's important to understand and appreciate the things you learned from the experience.  I submit for approval, the life lessons learned from enduring the HOSTEL trilogy in one sitting.

HOSTEL

Strong concepts can't save a weak movie: If there's one thing I won't deny Eli Roth, it's that he did create a Hell of a creepy concept.  The idea that there are people willing to pay a large sum of money to be a part of a league of violent killers with a penchant for torturing innocent tourists sounds like TAKEN on Walter White strength meth.  Having an interesting idea isn't all a film needs to be successful.  There is little to no tension in the film and all of the violence and killing feels entirely unmotivated.  Now, I understand that half of the charm comes from the "random acts of killing" but this just didn't click right with me.  There just wasn't a fluidity between the storyline and the actions within it. For shame, pussycat.   

Decent acting also cannot save a weak movie: As an actor myself, I am a very picky critic when it comes to acting in a horror film.  I don't think anyone in this film is deserving of any awards for their performances anytime soon, but Jay Hernandez is pretty damn convincing.  At least all of the actors were on the same page with their mediocrity, which gave some sense of continuity within a film that had none elsewhere.  Despite having actors that seemed very committed to the direction they had been given, the film still felt extremely flat and void of any sort of depth.  This could possibly be the terrible writing given for the women in this film.  Can screenwriters please start consulting women before they try to write for them? Eli Roth may have a hell of a female fanbase, but it is blatantly apparent the man has absolutely no clue how to write women.

Your special FX are bad, and you should feel bad: I don't do eye trauma, I don't. It's quite possibly the greatest kryptonite I have.  Upon my first viewing of HOSTEL I distinctly remember having to cover my face and I barely made it through the scene. Upon revisiting, I have no idea what I was so scared of.  One of the most well known scenes from the film has quite possibly the WORST special FX I have ever seen.  When she's screaming in the chair before Paxton cuts off the eye, YOU CAN SEE HER CLOSED EYELID UNDER THE PROSTHETIC. Come on, guys. Get your shit together. That's just basic FX makeup 101. The Achilles tendon cut is pretty good, but the eye scene is one of the worst makeup jobs I've seen in a very long time. Howard Berger, you're better than this.

Roth has absolutely no idea what people really talk like: There is this weird trend going on with filmmakers and having absolutely no idea what teenagers/young 20-somethings actually sound like. HOSTEL doesn't have any lines that are particularly memorable, but Roth slam jams some sarcastic rudeness and tries to play it off as "this is how kids today talk" but the thing is, they don't. They don't talk like how he thinks they do, at all. At 22, I think I'd know. His entire script of dialogue feels entirely forced and trying way too hard to be edgy.  It feels like that kid in the back of everyone's fiction writing class that just HAD to push the envelope if for any other reason than pushing the envelope.  My friends and I have a fair share of conversations that would make even Lisa Lampanelli blush, but Eli Roth must be compensating for something with the amount of dick references he's got sprinkled throughout...It was laughable in a bad way and really hurt the overall atmosphere of the film.  It's okay to be funny, but it's another thing for every single sentence out of someone's mouth to be worthy of upvotes on internet forums.  Good Example of Young Adult Dialogue: Adam Green's FROZEN. 

HOSTEL II

Eli Roth still has no idea how to write women: There is a reason that Eli Roth hasn't settled down yet, he has no idea what women are all about. Instead of focusing on frat boys like in the first film, Hostel II focuses on three art students who are the stockiest stock characters that ever stock charactered.  I still can't determine if it's because Eli Roth really, truly doesn't understand women, or if he's just a lazy fucking writer.  Two hours of hearing from whiny drunk blonde, overly angsty 'unique' brunette, and desperate wannabe. Heather Matarazzo must have been in a bind for cash, because this was so beneath her.

No one has any idea how much blood is in the human body: One of the misogynist scenes in horror history is the "Elizabeth Bathory" scene and with good reason. It may be (technically speaking) the best shot of the film, but Heather Matarazzo probably has about 3 liters of blood in her entire body, and there is no way she would be spilling this much all over this woman. I was so pissed off watching this scene, and the most misunderstood use of human blood since Johnny Depp's beddeath in Nightmare on Elm Street didn't help the case.

Apparently casting isn't important:  When I'm thinking of terrifying villains, I of course think immediately of Roger Bart.  Um. What? Roger Bart?! THE STRAIGHT NATHAN LANE?! A VILLAIN?! Eli Roth, I know you're not the best at casting (see Rider Strong in Cabin Fever) but this is ridiculous. This man has made a career as a character actor.  I'm all for giving actors opportunities out of type, but casting Roger Bart as a villain is about as convincing as casting Michael Cera as a heartthrob.  Every time he was on screen I was dumbfounded as to how THIS was their best option. Seriously? I just look at him and start singing showtunes.

Gimmicks can be used without reason: I'm sorry. What in the actual fuck was the purpose of putting these little desensitized hellions outside of being 'shocking' or 'edgy'?  Every time these little buggers came on screen I didn't know whether to laugh or scream in frustration.  It's one thing when killer kids have a purpose, but these kids served absolutely no purpose to the film at all. If the scenes including these kids were cut, the film would have lost absolutely nothing, if anything, the film could have benefited from keeping these ridiculously purposeless scenes on the cutting room floor.

HOSTEL III

Weird shit for no reason is a great distraction: Look at this mask. I'm serious. Look at it.  The entire premise of the third installment feels like the series had a baby with the rich people form Rat Race and are now betting in Vegas on the parameters of the deaths of these innocent people.  I kind of dig this concept, but what the hell was the point of this? It's aesthetically impressive, yes, but really distracting. I didn't care about the death scene, all I wanted was a better look at her mask work, which I think was the point all along. This film is garbage, here's a cool mask as a consolation prize.

Sluts are dumb: I am not using the word in an attempt to slut shame, I am using it because that is the stock character all of the women in this film fall into. They're all either escorts or sexually active which is HOLY SHIT SO TABOO in today's modern world.  So when this poor lass is covered with bugs and sweet stuff on her mouth, the slut wouldn't know any better than to close her mouth, would she? Of course not, because for a woman to have any sort of intelligence in any of these films is just too unrealistic. Did I mention she was dressed up like a cheerleader as well? Oh yeah, that happened too.

Victor learned a lot while he was in Europe: One of the more interesting casting choices was Kip Pardue as the villain.  I found it to be a really interesting choice and Pardue really delivered.  Taking the Elite Hunting Club out of their dreary European chambers and into the glamorous world of Las Vegas almost made it a little creepier for me (as an American) to think that this was going on in a place I'd actually visited instead of a location I'll probably avoid like the plague.  It seems that once the film got out of the hands of Eli Roth, things started to improve a little. I mean, a half step up from garbage is still trash, but this could have been a lot worse than it was.

I just saved you six miserable hours. 

You can thank me later.

BEN & HARRY: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MAJOR MEN OF NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD

In 1961, a director out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania was making his debut with an independent horror film by the title of Night of the Living Dead. Made on a budget of only one hundred and fourteen thousand dollars, George A. Romero’s first installment in his monumental and iconic “Living Dead” series, completely changed the face of the modern horror film and introduced audiences into the basis for the most popular subgenre of horror cinema. Romero’s slow moving, reanimated, undead humans surviving off of eating the flesh of the living became a staple for the modern zombie film and changed the face of undead monsters forever. Night of the Living Dead follows a group of people seeking refuge in an abandoned farmhouse amidst what would appear to be an epidemic where the recently deceased were reanimating, then attacking and eating the flesh of the living. An exposition on the true horrors of humanity as well as introducing a monster that had never been seen before, Night of the Living Dead is one of the most influential horror movies of all time.

Although George A. Romero consistently claims that his casting of Duane Johnson as the African-American protagonist “Ben” was solely based on the actor’s merit and wonderful audition, it would be giving the director a great disservice by not focusing on the importance of a leading African-American character as the main source of salvation, especially in 1968. At this time in America, society was slowly losing grasp on the hopeful ideals of a utopian society in the wake of the Vietnam War. The civil rights movement was growing in full force, but Americans were still hesitant to view African-American citizens on the same plane as their Caucasian counterparts. Ben single-handedly revolutionized the position of African Americans in the horror genre, and potentially, cinema as a whole. As a calm, collected, strong, and cool-headed hero overcoming an attack of not only monsters but also the hysterical antics of the white people surrounding him, Ben was one of the most prominent figures of African Americans in films portraying something outside of a parody or stereotype. Ben does the unthinkable for an African-American man at this time. Ben knocks a frantic white woman out cold, shoots a white man, acts as the voice of reason in the state of chaos, and stands as what would have been the sole survivor (if he hadn’t been mistaken for a ghoul and shot by a white militia). While it may be uncomfortable to address these issues in 2012 with an increasingly more welcoming attitude towards minority groups, the importance of Ben’s position cannot be ignored.

Throughout the course of the film, Harry Cooper is the antitheses of Ben’s character. Harry is distrusting, frantic, stubborn, selfish, and white. Harry was a strong symbol for the “old school” view of most of America at this time. A racist white man hiding out in the basement, Harry was a coward that used bullying and threatening actions as a means to achieve his wants. The older generations in 1968 were living amongst a growing youth of flower children fighting back the government and welcoming change at every turn. The old school disposition was hesitant to follow suit with their younger counterparts, and Harry Cooper is a shining beacon of that mentality.

One scene in particular, is the altercation between Ben and the Caucasian antagonist of the film, fellow refugee Harry Cooper. After a botched attempt for the two young adults trying to escape the ghouls by vehicle, Ben finds himself trapped outside the house after failing to save them. Harry Cooper and his family are the only ones inside the locked house, and Ben remains on the front porch trying to get in while fighting off the horde of the undead. Harry could easily open the door, but he stands hesitant in the opening of the cellar door with the option of either aiding in Ben’s safety, or letting him die. Ben frantically pummels himself into the doorway until finally kicking the door open. At a moment of change in character, Harry Cooper runs to the door to help Ben barricade it shut. Once the door is nailed shut, Ben immediately turns on Harry and begins to punch him numerous times before throwing him into an armchair and threatening to throw him to the ghouls.

 This scene may have appeared to be nothing more than a cowardly man locking out another, but when analyzed further, it represents society’s attitudes towards change as a whole. Most of the initial shots of Harry show him in shadowed lighting while Ben is almost always in full light. It was as if Ben was the white light and Harry was left in the darkness. Harry and his family represent the traditional standards for the American family as set up by the ruling white class. The Cooper family remains within the home, a place of comfort, safety, and white familiarity. Outside of the confines of the home contained a world of potential danger, the unknown, and an African American man. When Ben kicks the door in, he’s a personification of the new changes that were happening to society whether or not the ruling white class was prepared for it. Ben is reality. He was a force to be reckoned with and his advancements weren’t going to be stopped.

Following Ben’s initial emergence, Harry is seen hiding in the doorway to the cellar. Harry had the choice between helping to keep out the monsters outside, or running even further downstairs into the cellar. The cellar would have solidified Harry’s desire for familiarity, but he reluctantly helps Ben nail the door shut. It can be interpreted that Harry had a change of heart when deciding to nail the door shut, but it could also be analyzed that his only motivation for barricading the door was to further protect himself and keep out the unknown. However, when Ben and Harry both nail the door closed, it symbolized that regardless of differences, the two were going to have to work together in order for things to move smoothly and to keep themselves protected. Once order was restored and Ben began to hit Harry, he was literally giving the old school mentality a reality slap. The terrors of the societal changes happening in 1968 were difficult for many of the older generations to handle and it wasn’t until the changes were forced upon them that they began to try and accept them. These cultural advancements needed to come with a heavy hand otherwise these changes wouldn’t have come at all.

LOOK WHAT YOUR BROTHER DID TO THE DOOR: A LOOK AT THE IDEOLOGY OF THE PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY DISABLED IN THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE

Hi, have you missed me?  I'll spare the gritty details of why my absence has been exactly one month, but in short, MAMA'S BEEN BUSY! I took a well needed break and I'm feeling better than ever.  Which means more fun for you :) Earlier today I posted on my instagram the cover photo for a paper I wrote for my film class on the ideology ideology of the physically and mentally disabled in The Texas Chain Saw Masscare . Well, apparently you fools want to read it.  I've modified the original content just a tad so it'll read less like an academic article and more like a BJ-C blog entry, but without further ado, THE IDEOLOGY OF THE PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY DISABLED IN THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE!!

Hailing from the desert plains of Texas, a college professor and documentary cameraman by the name of Tobe Hooper was dabbling with independent films, while attempting to wrangle up a crew for a feature film of his own. Alongside writing partner Kim Henkel and comprised predominately of college professors and local students, Hooper armed himself with an estimated $60,000 budget and created one of the most iconic horror films of all time, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Following the story of Sally Hardesty, her brother Franklin, their friend Jerry, their friend Pam, and Pam’s boyfriend Kirk, the audience is shown a look into flower children on a road trip across the state in hopes of visiting a home from Sally and Franklin’s childhood as well as investigating a recent grave robbing.  Why anyone would desire to visit a dead body impaled through the asshole by a gravestone is beyond me, but the '70s were a weird fucking era.  The youngsters living in an era before picking up strangers from the road was seen as strange take it upon themselves to pick up a mysterious hitchhiker along their journey who turns violent, erratic, and then forces the troupe to stop along their trip just to deal with his insanity. Who would have thought picking up a sweaty stranger with weird jewelry and a camera dangling off his neck was going to be anything but sane.  After a bit more of a drive, the “Van Family” as they are called, comes across the old house and later on, the Leatherface family residing just next door.

Taking place towards the end of the Vietnam War, the film acts as subtle commentary on the current socio-political climate as well as an exploitation in an immense amount of ideologies of American culture. Arguably, it is the emergence of disabled characters in cinema that acts as one of the most overlooked attribute of the film's importance. Before 1974, mentally and physically handicapped individuals were few and far between on the silver screen, but The Texas Chain Saw Massacre showcases a physically handicapped man and a family of seemingly mentally handicapped individuals. For those grateful enough to live without any sort of physical or mental handicaps, it can be difficult at times to understand or have the proper know how in terms of existing around the disabled. To put it simply, we're some pretty politically incorrect assholes who stare at the disabled or make off-handed comments.  TCM exploits the human’s tendency to treat those with physical handicaps with pity or condolences while greeting the mentally disabled with fear, hostility, and judgment.

The character of Franklin Hardesty is immediately pinpointed as the outcast of the “Van Family”. Surrounded by thin, conventionally attractive flower children, Franklin is overweight, sweaty, temperamental, and paralyzed from the waist down. It becomes rather obvious that Franklin is a black sheep and is to be treated as such. When the Van Family picks up the mysterious hitchhiker, Franklin is the first one to be mistreated on the van. His inability to escape due to the confines of his chair cause the audience to feel a sense of sympathy for him and his condition. Individuals that are physically capable and able to escape if placed in a similar scenario watch this scene without the levity of taking their ability to run away for granted. This severs any connection to the emotional struggle needed to understand and interpret the motives of how each character is interpreted, regardless of their motives. In later scenes, Franklin is shown struggling with entering the home due to the poor traction of the wheelchair, or needing the aide of Sally to push him through the forest in order to escape the dangers that lie ahead. Instead of feeling scared or worried for the well being of his character, audiences instead are geared to feel pity towards his situation.

Audiences know from the beginning that his wheelchair is going to be responsible for his decline, (due to the limited mobility and the struggle of wheeling around the rough terrain) and because of that, we no longer fear for his safety but rather look down upon him for being doomed from the start. Unfortunately, this state of mind seems to be one that is frequently instilled within human psyche regardless of time period. Tobe Hooper utilizes Franklin's condition to garner and molest the notions and misconceptions that we as a society feel towards the handicapped. Is Franklin's physical limitations a result of his demise or not? It's not the act of examining these shortcomings but rather a needed reflection as a whole of why we view this as any reason to segregate this character from any other victim.

In contrast to the physical disability of Franklin, The Leatherface family is often attributed to some form of mental illness as a means to explain their murderous and cannibalistic tendencies. Without further dissection, it is vital that it is mentioned that there is a very strong possibility that the Leatherface family is without any sort of mental disability at all. The progeny of the Leatherface family live as male descendents of a character known only as “Grandpa”. As the patriarch of the household, all of the men born into this family line have been raised from birth to be relentless killing machines. A life of manipulation, death, and destruction is the only way of life these individuals know. Without divulging into far more rooted arguments of nature vs. nurture, let it be known that criminal actions do not equate mental illness. Whether or not the Leatherface family was suffering from a mental illness is irrelevant, because to the victims in the film, they associated their actions with that of a “crazy” person and reacted to them in response to that assumption. During the ‘dinner party,’ Sally screams in terror "You’re crazy,” something that audiences watching the films more than likely agreed with. This statement alone is the sole proof of the way the audience views the Leatherface family. Mental disabilities are highly misunderstood and the actions it causes those suffering with the disability to perform are often so different than that of “normal” society that it invokes an uncontrollable sense of fear in those that are without the mental disability. Sally makes her panicked assumption of the mental state of mind of the Leatherface family in a frantic, screaming, and traumatic situation. From the very beginning, the Van family treats those that behave even the slightest inkling outside of “normal” with hostility and cruelty. Is it that we as society value our physical capabilities over our mental capacities, or is it that we truly fear what the human mind is capable of causing the body to do? Regardless of the answer to this question, the ideology of the way society handles those with handicaps is reflected as clear as crystal in The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.  Crazy should be handled with hostility and even starting to sit and think of the reasoning behind the "insane" actions is simply a waste.

Once Sally has escaped the traumatic events, she is shown in her final scenes in a state of manic laughter.  Has she survived? Yes. At what cost? That is the real question.  In a world of overly political correctness, it's difficult to swallow the behaviors shown in films of yesteryear.  What audiences NEED to understand is a sense of context, and to accept that films are a product of their time.  While using racial slurs or derogatory language towards specific minority groups would be deemed improper in today's film world, our views towards those suffering from physical and mental disabilities appears not to have changed.  It may be difficult to grasp, but by simply taking a look back at The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, we as a society can be forced to look dead on at how slowly we've evolved in terms of sensitivity to the disabled.

WOMEN'S HALLOWEEN COSTUMES: NON-SEXY NEED NOT APPLY

 For most horror fanatics, Halloween is the most exciting part of our entire year.  For one night, it becomes socially acceptable for us to show off our nerd prowess without fear of judgement.  Now, of course I understand that we are all proud of our geekery year round, but the general populous is less likely to look down upon us around the witching hour.  It also shouldn't matter what the general public has to say about us, but for the sake of argument, let us all just accept the fact that we're more welcome to be spooky this time of year in contrast to say, Easter.  Moving on.  Halloween is a time of tricks, treats, and dressing up as whoever or whatever we please.  The weird thing, is that for women, we are forced to be whatever or whoever we please...within a very specific constraint.  Provocative. Before I even get into this argument, know that I am a HUGE advocate against Slut-Shaming.  If someone wants to dress a certain way, more power to them, this argument is not against women who choose to dress provocatively, it is an argument against perpetuating objectification for no other reason than to excuse objectification with a holiday "tradition".

Without divulging into the history of Halloween and all that jazz, in the western world it is generally accepted as a time of year where individuals dress up in costumes, throw parties, carve pumpkins, and eat an unmeasurable amount of sugar.  Costumes can range from common professions, beloved characters, super heroes, monsters, and of course, sexual fantasies.  Over the past few years, an unsettling trend of women's costumes has grown to a near epidemic status.  It would appear that for a woman to have a socially acceptable Halloween costume, she must wear one in a manner as provocative as humanly possible.  Again, let me emphasize that I have no issue with what a woman chooses to or to not wear.  However, when I walk into a Halloween costume emporium and have to choose between something baring my midriff, something baring my chest, or something so short I'd show my whispering eye if I sneezed, that is a sign of a problem.  The issue here isn't that women are dressing provocatively, the issue is that it would appear that highly sexualized costumes are our only option.  Perhaps worse is the fact that this idea has been so engrained into our skulls, women are starting to believe that it really is our only option.  Are there exceptions to this rule? Of course.  Unfortunately, exceptions are in the vast minority.  

It is true that men and women's clothing must be tailored differently simply because we're built differently. (See: Boobs and Hips)  However, please look at this photo above.  The costume to the left is a familiar Michael Myers costume inspired by the Halloween series.  The costume to the right?  The female version of the same costume.  Seriously. That's supposed to be a Michael Myers costume.  If you look, you'll notice an absence of a mask, a tighter fitting form, a more revealing top towards the breasts, and a set of "fuck-me" pumps.  I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure Laurie Strode could have knocked the block off of "Michelle Myers".  The first image showcased in this article is the increasingly popular "Mrs. Krueger" costume, the female counterpart of Freddy.  I will admit that this is a costume that particularly tickles my fancy, but seriously...Freddy wore pants.  Freddy also had a face burned to all Holy Hell.  Of course, the woman couldn't have burns though, no.  Then no one would want to get her in the sack.

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of women's Halloween costume is how early the sexualization begins.  I won't even post some of the ridiculous things posted about children's costuming, but please read above the description of a "teen" costume.  Teen as in "more than likely too young to consent to sex".  The description says "...whimsical and girly but you are all grown up now so why not find out if big boys like to play with dolls!" Um. What? This sounds like something out of a kiddie-porn chat session. Remember, this costume is geared towards girls between the ages of 13-18, geared towards women who can't vote or in some instances drive or see an R-Rated movie without the help of mom and dad...AND THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE THAT SEXY!? The most screwed up part about all of this is that we are still living in a country where lawyers will ask rape victims what they were wearing and yet women are still expected to dress like this on Halloween.  ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!

I'll admit that I'm guilty of dressing "slutty" on Halloween. I always do. I'm 22 years old and I am at college. However, instead of being a half naked "insert profession or object or character" here, I find a way to show of my horror chops as well.  Since starting college I've been a female Ash (complete with chainsaw arm), a Silent Hill nurse, a broken doll, and this year I'll be going as Laurie from Trick R Treat.  All of these costumes, I've had to make myself.  Why? Because not only is it next to impossible to find horror nerd costumes for a girl that aren't the ones featured above,but to find a costume in plus size? Get outta here...

"BUT MEN ARE OBJECTIFIED TOO!" You may cry. No. No they are not. Stop right there. You're wrong. Yes, there will be some skimpy and/or tight fitting costumes here and there, but NOT many.  Seriously, I could count on my fingers how many "sexualized" male costumes there were.  Hell, even the ones that are there are clearly for the empowerment of the man and not for the female gaze. The “sexy” costumes will either be ridiculously jokey with some sort of visual reference to a penis on the exterior of the costume, OR nothing special. Many of the "sexy" male costumes are just different colored boxers, sometimes with a set of suspenders.  The costume to the right is meant to be funny.  There's a reason the "Dick In A Box" video got so many hits, and it's not because it was sexually appealing to see Andy Sandburg gift wrap his johnson.  Of course I'm not saying that men aren't objectified at times, but in the world of Halloween costumes, men can do whatever they want, but if a woman doesn't dress completely risque, she's "doing it wrong".  This is a huge problem and unfortunately, because we keep dishing out the dough for these costumes, it's a problem that isn't going to be resolved anytime soon.

I cannot stress again that I have no qualms with women who decide to dress sexy for Halloween, I do it, I love to do it. It makes me feel good about myself. The problem is that women aren't allowed to make that decision.  Dressing sexy is our only option. Unless we make a costume by hand or forego the costumes all together and wear street clothes, women are forced to pick through the aisles of costumes with hemlines growing shorter and tops squeezing tighter.  We need options, we need choices, and unfortunately for us, the only decisions we get to make in Halloween costume selection is whether or not we're showing leg or breast this season.

JOSHUA HOFFINE JOINS FORCES WITH VISCERA FILM FESTIVAL

Joshua Hoffine is the man behind the lens of some of the most horrific photographs in recent history.  Taking inspirations from his grotesquely gorgeous photography from childhood nightmares, skinned corpses, H.P. Lovecraft, Jack the Ripper, and supernatural urban legends, Hoffine has recently teamed up with the Viscera Film Festival to create an aura all its own. 

FROM THE PRESS RELEASE: Viscera’s Founder and Chief Officer of Operations, Shannon Lark, explains: “We went with Hoffine's work to represent the Viscera Film Festival this year because his photography captures an eerie beauty, conjuring a nostalgic feeling of horror that hits the human psyche with memories of childhood fears and reminds us of how deeply moving and vital the genre is for humans to express and share.
The Viscera Organization's festivals exploit the terrifying, the thrilling, and the fantastic with a vivid landscape of genre films by women. Hoffine's depiction of the body, the soul, and the monstrosity of the imagination completely resonates with the mind blowing work by female filmmakers who participate in the Viscera Film Festival.”
And what about that ghoulish woman lying among roses? “Persephone was a nature goddess who became Queen of the Underworld after being abducted by Hades. The myth of her abduction represents her role as the personification of vegetation – which shoots forth in spring and withdraws into the earth in autumn.  When she is in the Underworld we experience winter.  And when she visits the world she brings with her spring, flowers, and the resurrection of life. As both a Goddess of Spring, and the Queen of the Underworld – she exemplifies the tension between life and death,” Hoffine states. “As for Viscera, I proudly support emerging women filmmakers in the horror genre.”
About the Viscera Film Festival and Viscera Organization:

The Viscera Film Festival was created in 2007 by Shannon Lark to encourage and promote the work of women horror filmmakers. The fest has grown each year, morphing into a 501(c)3 non-profit organization with an ever-expanding, dynamic staff of men and women who eat, sleep, and breathe genre cinema. Beginning as a touring festival, Viscera has become a highly anticipated genre event in Los Angeles, complete with red carpet (what we affectionately refer to as the “Bloody Carpet”), celebrity guests, and a raucous after-party. 2012 marked the third annual Bloody Carpet event in Los Angeles at the Egyptian Theatre. Viscera’s tentacles have encircled the globe and films programmed at the festival have screened all over the world. 
The call for submissions for Viscera’s 2013 festival is open through February 28, 2013 (culminating in Women in Horror Month), accepting digital submissions only. Unlike most festivals, Viscera does not charge submission fees. Filmmakers interested in submitting should head to the Submissions tab of the main website, www.viscerafilmfestival.com.

STRANGE KIDS CLUB RELEASES ART PRINTS FOR FAMOUS HORROR SEQUELS (that should have happened)

Artwork by Nathan Thomas Milliner. 18″x24″ digital print. Hand numbered. Edition of 100.

As much as we'd all like to think that each and every horror film is made with the hopes of moving forward a storyline, or giving new life to the world of the film.  Unfortunately, most of the time, it's all about making money.  There's a reason we keep seeing Wrong Turn 525600 being made while incredible films more deserving of advancements in plot are left to sit and collect dust.  Luckily, Rondal Scott and the folks over at Strange Kids Club have found a fantastic way to give our little fanhearts something we've always dreamed of, but also given a way for you to hold on to a piece of would-be horror history.

Strange Kids Club is very excited to announce their latest project, kicking off this October with the release of its collector’s art print series based on horror sequels that don’t, but certainly should, exist. The series will include three prints, each brought to life by a different artist. The first poster in the series, “The Burning 2” by artist Nathan Thomas Milliner was unveiled this morning and will be made available for purchase on Strange Kids Club today, Thursday, October 4th at 9:30am.

Click the poster above or right HERE to get your hands on your copy, today!

PLEASE NOTE: These posters will be on pre-order, so please allow approximately 5 to 6 weeks for poster to ship. Actual shipping transit time (once your order has been shipped) will vary based on your location.

WILL HD BE THE DEATH OF PRACTICAL FX?

Before I continue any further with this article, let it be known that I am in no way an AV expert, nor have I ever claimed to be one.  I DO NOT KNOW THE PROPER TERMINOLOGY FOR ANY OF THIS HD/LCD/FPS/OPP NONSENSE.  I do, however, know when something looks like garbage. This article is a reflection of an opinion gathered by my own personal experiences. 

 

In the wake of the uproar tied to The Hobbit's release trailer in 48fps (frames per second), fans and critics have been in a constant debate on whether or not this sort of filmmaking is necessary.  Some are claiming that this is the way of the future, that we need to bite our tongues and accept the fact that sooner or later, all films are going to be in this clearer than the naked-eye format, while others are finding it difficult to watch with a jarring clarity.  48fps is dramatically quicker than what our eyes are used to and while the picture quality in still frames look monumentally better, the clarity does not come without a price. Even if the film is shot in the more standard "cinematical" format, film companies are upgrading to a higher picture quality.  While the picture quality is undoubtedly gorgeous, it enhances flaws just as dramatically as it does perfections.  Wrinkles that we wouldn't see in person are now glaring at us in the face, and hairs beneath pores are now seen on an insanely large scale. Without going into the details about these enhancements making everything look like a Daytime Soap Opera, I'm concentrating on the one thing that will affect the world of horror movies more than any other film genre.  Practical FX. 

Ever since films fell in love with the quick and cheap process of using CGI effects, the incredible art form of practical effects in films have taken a back seat.  Blood and guts have gone digital, and movie monsters look faker than your sister's prom date.  People have become so absorbed with their new fangled hi-def flat screens, that we're globbering up enhanced films quicker than they're coming out.  That's not to say that I'm not for the progression of film quality, because I'm completely for it.  However, comma, enhancements aren't always for the best.  Have you ever looked at your skin under one of those 15x mirrors?  Suddenly you're spending hours prodding pores, plucking hairs, and applying more makeup. HD and higher FPS formatting do somewhat of a similar thing when it comes to film.  It takes something that already looks pretty good, and enhances absolutely EVERYTHING.  I mean EVERYTHING.  It's nearly impossible to hide imperfections in these formats because we ourselves cannot see these imperfections with our naked eye.  It's only after things are enhanced that we think "Christ, do I really look like that?"  For practical effects, this is a death sentence.

As someone who only recently stepped into the HD scene, I've never really noticed the issue.  This past May was the first time I've ever owned a flat screen TV, and it was also the first time I've ever had a blu-ray player.  Call me behind the times all you want, I prefer "broke-ass college student," if I may.  Moving on, the past week I have been finally able to experience Netflix Instant Watch (again, broke college kid) on a 52 inch LCD flatscreen with amazeballs picture quality.  Forgive my ignorance, but as I am not an AV girl, I'm just going to refer to the hyper-realistic clarity as "super HD".  I first watched Pontypool in "super HD" and it was a walk in the park.  The only real special effects were vomiting blood and I didn't have any gripes with it.  Looking at a man's five o' clock shadow in HD however, a little strange to get used to.  Simply out of pure boredom, I watched the final installment of the SAW franchise.  I was curious to see how such an effects driven film was going to do in such a HD setting, and my worst fears were realized.  I commend the people behind SAW 3D for the amount of practical effects used in the film.  Seriously, there were a butt load of practical kills and I was pleasantly surprised to notice.  I never noticed them when I saw the film in theaters, probably because the theater didn't look like this.  It's a theater. It looked cinematical and in a completely different format.  When I watched the film again in "super HD", everything looked so...fake.  Everything looked completely unrealistic and the already over the top kills weren't scary, they were distracting.  The worst was by far the "skin grafted onto the car leather" scene, but every single practical kill looked horribly amateur.

At first I thought it was a fault of the FX artist, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized...it's not.  It is absolutely, 100% not the FX artist's problem that their work looks fake in HD.  Now, before anyone starts to badger me about this, let me explain.  You see, these clarity enhancements make pictures crisper than what our eye can see naturally.   The visual enhancements are done in post-production, after the FX have already been completed and shot.  How can we hold an artist accountable for something completely out of their control?  It would be insane to blame an FX artist for bad coloring when it's physically impossible for them to see their work any clearer than what their eye can give them.  If the FX look fake, filmmakers are going to opt for CGI.  Not only is CGI much cheaper, but if practical FX look as tacky as CGI, filmmakers are just going to go for the cheaper route.  This is a tragedy.  An honest to goodness tragedy.  The only real practical FX that seems to break the mold is The Thing, but that film defies all logic and reason on its own.  Again, let me restate that I'm not against the progression of visual quality, but maybe, just maybe we don't need to get this clear with EVERY film.  In the same sense that we're never going to have a need for What To Expect When You're Expecting 3-D, I don't think we need horror requiring practical FX in 48fps or in ridiculously high picture quality.  It could always just be my special eyes, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject. I've already heard people telling me that this issue can be fixed by changing a setting on the television, but even after making this change, the HD still made some practical FX look like muff cabbage.  Tell me what you think and comment below!

WOMAN OF THE WEEK: REBEKAH MCKENDRY

When it comes to women in horror, it doesn't get much more impressive than Rebekah McKendry.  As the current Director of Marketing for Fangoria magazine, Rebekah McKendry is living proof that bad-ass horror fans come in all forms, vagina included.  Rebekah wasn't always the horror professional.  Before she hit it big with Fangoria, she had a full-time position as a public school teacher. McKendry taught film and English at a high school just outside of Washington, D.C.  Unfortunately, teaching wasn't for her and she sought out to find her true calling.  After moving to New York City, Rebekah found herself working for the New York Horror Film festival.  She would meet many staff members of Fangoria in this process and began to work part-time for Fangoria Radio as a researcher.  Working her way through a number of different positions including writing and assistant producing, she became the Director of Marketing.  As the DM, she works with cross promotions, sponsorships, advertising, conventions, fan relations, and merchandising, just to name a handful of her responsibilities.  To top it off, while doing all of this, she's still a contributing writer.
 
With a B.A. in Film, Master's in Media Education, Master's in Film, and is in progress for a PhD in Media and Film, (that makes her soon to be Dr. McKendry for those playing at home) Rebekah has more than proven her street cred as a film guru.  Her personal musings can be found on her blog on the Fangoria site is called Bekah’s Confessions, and she's contributed to many books as well.  This past April, Rebekah McKendry had been selected as a new host of the popular horror web show INSIDE HORROR, joining the ranks of current hosts Elric Kane and Staci Lane.  As a producer, writer, director, and show host, Rebekah McKendry has achieved what just about every little horror girl has always dreamed of.  She has found a way to work within the medium that she loves, and is respected for it.  Rebekah McKendry is a force to be reckoned with and one of the queens of the horror journalism world.  No one does it like Rebekah McKendry and she has truly paved the way for female horror writers/journalists to come.  We at Day of the Woman salute you.  

TERRIBLE POSTER TUESDAY: TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 3-D

Texas Chainsaw massacre superfans are a breed unlike any other in the world of horror fandoms.  Seriously, those that belong to "The Saw Is Family" way of life fit right in with the Buffy shippers and Whovians.  I have been trying my hardest to keep myself as free from knowledge about this remake/reimaging/reboot/rewhatever so I can give it a fair view when it releases, but I cannot prevent the furious littering of superfan tirades from appearing on my social networking news-feeds.  Ladies and germs, this is how I was introduced to this absolutely treacherous advertisement.  The worst part about this poster is the fact it exists alongside this absolutely beautiful poster.  It's painfully obvious that whoever in charge of marketing only wanted to dish out the cash for one of the advertisements.  While one poster was brilliant and enticing to look at, the other was a rehashing of a poster we've seen about ten million times before it.  To put it simply, this is painfully generic and not worth a bead of ass sweat on the taint of the TCM franchise. 

The complete and utter lack of originality is first and foremost the most offensive aspect of the entire poster.  The solid color background, bright red font, and half shown image of someone from the chest down facing away from the camera wielding a weapon has been done more times than a "shoot them in the head" line in a zombie film.  Not only that, but the dramatic lighting that somehow reflects in the wrong part of the weapon in comparison to where it shadows the person holding it is another trend that needs to quickly end.  It's absolutely infuriating to try and have hope for a remake when it is already setting the tone that it will follow the same path as all of the horror movie remakes that have come before it.  Amateur, generic, and disappointing.  The man with the chainsaw appears to be more of a rough and tumble lumberjack than Leatherface, a very edited Leatherface.  Seriously, this image has gone through more filters than a girl with an acne problem on instagram. Everything looks unnatural and a bit too staged for my liking. 

Let's take a side step for a quick second and discuss that God forsaken font.  My god.  This font is to horror movies what Helvetica is to hipsters.  WHY?!  Why must every. single. horror. movie. poster. use. the. same. damn. red. font?! WE GET IT. IT'S A HORROR MOVIE. THE RED SYMBOLIZES BLOOD. WAH WAH WAH. Show some damn creativity!  Show me something that isn't in all caps, show me something in green, show me anything than this damn font in red lettering in all caps!  It wouldn't be nearly as bad if the film didn't use the same font as the SAW franchise, you know, because the word "saw" is in "chainsaw" and that makes it all the more obvious that the graphic designer is ripping off another film.  Coming from the same producers or not, using the exact same font is incredibly lazy.  Now some may try to write it off as a "strategy" to elicit the same emotion by viewing it as audiences would see with the SAW posters, but I don't buy that. It's lazy marketing. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy.

Plastered in tiny font and quite ill-placed is "Buzz. Kill."  Presumably, this is the tagline.  The amount of face in my palm is unmeasurable.  When I read this tagline, my only response is one similar to Peter Griffin on Family Guy whenever he is forced to listen through anything from Buzz Killington.  I know that the audiences of today tend to be a bit stupid (I mean, they'd have to be to crank out that much money for Twilight and only a fraction of it for DREDD) but don't insult the fine folk.  Everyone has at least HEARD of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.  Don't insult our intelligence, and please don't take tagline advice from people who write jokes for Laffy Taffy candy wrappers.

Despite popular belief, I've noticed that it's pretty easy to judge a film by it's poster.  There are always exceptions, but the rule of thumb tends to be that a shitty poster will accompany a shitty film.  Now, I am going to go into this film expecting less than I would from a four year old not whining in a grocery store, but this poster did not change my already preconceived opinion.  If anything, I'm now going to be heading into that theatre even more weary as I originally intended. Damn it.

ZOMBIE, ILLINOIS: SCOTT KENEMORE RETURNS WITH HIS BEST NOVEL YET.

No stranger to Day of the Woman, zombie expert, Scott Kenemore is at it again with his second zombie novel centered around a midwest outbreak.  Scott Kenemore is the author of the Zen of Zombie-series of humor/satire books, and the novel Zombie, Ohio.  A graduate of Kenyon College and Columbia University, Scott is a proud member of the Zombie Research Society and the Horror Writers Association.  When he's not writing,  Scott is a Chicago Drummer and is the drummer for the musical band The Blissters.  Scott has discussed zombies on the Fox News Channel, National Public Radio, Martha Stewart Living Radio, The Alan Colmes Show and other esteemed news outlets.  His books have been written about in the Chicago Tribune, Huffington Post, Hartford Courant, Indianapolis Star, Cleveland Plain Dealer, USA TODAY, Rue Morgue Magazine, Fangoria, Gawker.com, BoingBoing.net, AOL News, and the New York Times “City Room” blog.  He's even such the zombie expert that he's been been asked to discuss zombies and horror-writing at conventions like Comic-Con International, Spooky Empire, and ZomBcon.

Zombie, Ohio was the first zombie novel that we had seen from him after his Zen of Zombie satirical book series, but Zombie, Illinois has taken his writing skills to an entirely new level.  The novel has three narrators-- a twenty-something Latina rock drummer in an all girl band, a thirty-something male political news reporter, and a sixty-something African American pastor. Zombie, Illinois follows these three characters as they interact with one another, fight zombies, and negotiate the difficulties of the first 24 hours of a zombie outbreak in Chicago, Chicagoland, and greater Illinois. Many of the themes and locales are drawn from Scott Kenemore's own experiences (being a drummer in Chicago bands, working in the media, and working for six years with community-improvement organizations in African American neighborhoods on Chicago's South Side).   

The most interesting thing about Kenemore's writing style is his ability to generate very different voices for each of his characters, while still maintaining his own style of writing.  Obviously the language between a girl in a band called "Strawberry Brite Vagina Dentata" is going to be far more vulgar than an African American pastor working in the slums of the South Side of Chicago.  Somehow, he manages to retain a sense of fluidity and the book flows seamlessly between the three different perspectives.  The characters are likable from very different corners of perspective, and everything feels very...real.  One of the easiest mistakes to make with a zombie novel is losing touch with reality, which is something Kenemore never does.  He has produced a zombie novel that is able to frighten, thrill, and entertain without ever becoming campy.  

Any Chicago native (or anyone who has ever visited Chicago) will be sure to enjoy all of the little homages that the book throws to us Windy City dwellers.  Kenemore has written a novel about zombies, yes, but the underlying exposition on the beating heart of Chicago is thrown right in our faces.  He has truly captured what it means to be a Chicagoan and what makes us different than any other city on the planet.  "West Coast, East Coast, how about NO COAST." He really did his homework with mentions of cities outside of Chicago, including a little nod to my overzealous religious city of Zion, Illinois just north of Chicago.  

The fact that Kenemore doesn't receive as much praise or notoriety as say, a certain zombie author with a very famous filmmaking daddy, is incredibly frustrating.  Kenemore has tapped into the human condition, underground issues in society, and of course, the zombie phenomena. The world in which is characters reside is one that is very, very convincing.  While reading Zombie, Illinois, it never once feels out of the ordinary and everything resembles how a zombie apocalypse would actually happen.  To put it simply, Zombie, Illinois is one of the most entertaining and realistic zombie outbreak novels in a very long time. 

You can purchase Zombie, Illinois on Amazon 

HERE 

or 

You can try to win one of the two copies I've got for giveaway by sending me an email 

at BRITTNAHJADE@GMAIL.COM with 

"I LOVE CHICAGO ZOMBIES" in the title

PITTSBURGH'S SCAREHOUSE PREMIERES WEBSERIES SCARE U!

Natives of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania are no stranger to the premiere haunted attraction, The ScareHouse.  Named "one of America's Scariest Halloween Attractions" by the Travel Channel, The ScareHouse was also ranked as one of the country's Top 3 Haunted Houses by Haunted Attraction Magazine and HauntedHouseRatings.com. The ScareHouse was recently voted as the #1 haunted house in the world by Tophaunts.com - featured in the pages of USA TODAY, Fangoria, Money, Funworld, and Pittsburgh magazines - profiled online by AOL, Forbes, Univision, Yahoo, and many other websites - and featured in two national television shows airing on Travel Channel: "America Haunts" and "America's Scariest Halloween Attractions."  Offering three haunts for just one price: The Forsaken, Pittsburgh Zombies, and theirnewest attraction: Creepo's Christmas in 3-D. "Pittsburgh's Ultimate Haunted House" is located just minutes from downtown and open on select dates from late September through mid November. (The ScareHouse FB Page)  If you're not impressed by this resume yet, you're not reading the same reviews I am.  

In the wake of the success of this spookhouse, The ScareHouse has started their very own websires, SCARE U.  Hosted by Dr. Margee Kerr, Scare U dives into the scientific explanations as to why specific things frighten us. Dr. Margee Kerr holds a doctorate degree in sociology, and has been studied the science of fear for many years.  Since 2008, she has shared her findings with The ScareHouse. In the Scare U series, she invites us to go deeper into fear, discovering how our brains and bodies are reacting to the things that scare us.  The series premiered with a common fear of many horror folks, creepy clowns. The 8 part series of Scare U will come out each Wednesday from now until Halloween. The series will explore fears ranging from zombies, dolls, phobias, and much more, featuring terrifying footage from both the ScareHouse and popular movies and TV shows. The first episode was extremely well done and I cannot wait for the rest of the series. It feels like one of those specials you'd see on The Discovery Channel, but far more entertaining, and much more unsettling.  It's a shame it's only an 8 part series, because I would watch this year wrong.  Hell, I'd watch this as an actual television series. 

The entire series can be found on the ScareHouse's YouTube channel: 

http://www.youtube.com/TheScareHouse

THIS FILM IS A DEADLY SIN: A REVIEW OF FAT KID MASSACRE

As of late, the horror genre seems to be overwhelmed with remakes and found footage films.  Whenever an original concept is brought to light, genre fans cling to it not necessarily because of its high quality, but simply because it's different.  A short film was recently brought to my attention with an incredibly unique premise, but unfortunately fails to deliver a quality final product.  Brought to us by BDHR Entertainment (run by the man behind Big Daddy Horror Reviews, Brandon Sites) FAT KID MASSACRE is (according to the crew) "a touching coming of age story that revolves around a former fat kid who got muscular and good looking, but who struggles with identity issues as his former friends - THE FAT KIDS - bully him on a constant basis. As a cruel prank is set into motion, a killer arrives on the scene to make sure these fat kids pay for their glutony and unhealthy lifestyle, including death by Twinkie suffociation!"  I copied this description off of their official indiegogo fanpage, spelling errors included.  Based solely off of the short film version that has been circulating the internet, I think that the writers behind this film are giving themselves a little too much credit.  This film was a borderline abomination, an insult to horror filmmaking, and stole nine minutes and twenty seconds of my life that I will never get back.

First of all, the acting by the three "fat kids" are absolutely treacherous.  Writer/Producer Brandon Sites cast himself as one of the fat kids and he looked like he was smiling with pride after delivering every single line.  His acting style reminded me of Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder, in that every time he said a line that "sounded black" he'd smile at what he presumed to be his own brilliance. The only difference, is that Brandon Sites has absolutely no concept of vocal rhythm and delivers lines reminiscent of the old women preaching "all senior citizens should have life alert" followed by an unnatural smile.  The first three seconds of the damn short show the fat kids stuffing their faces and you can see Brandon Sites trying not to smile while shoving food in his mouth.  I have nothing against writers/producers/directors acting in their films, but usually...they can actually fucking act.  To make matters worse, Brandon and the other "fat kids" are supposedly the old friends of former fat kid "Ian-The Skinny Bitch". Ian looks easily twenty years younger than all of them, which forces the believability of their friendship completely out the window.  It's unfortunate, because Ryan Sandefur, the actor playing Ian, actually plays a "bitch" quite well.  The only problem is that he's a halfway decent actor surrounded by a gaggle of guys who wouldn't have even been cast as Tree #4 in a community theatre production.

The final seven minutes of the short film is nothing more than one of the fat kids tied to a chair by a masked man who "taunts him" with weapons until finally forcefeeding him Twinkies until he dies.  For seven minutes we're given nothing but a poorly lit room with a dull build up to an unsatisfying pay off.  All the while, forced to listen to the annoying and unconvincing whines of a fat kid tied up to a chair. I can't even give them credit for having an unique kill, because we've seen the "feed the fatty to death" kill before in plenty of other films. (I'm looking at you, Se7en).  The dialogue is mind-numbingly poor and clearly forgot any sort of common sense in the process. When the fat kids are bullying the skinny bitch, one of the men states "You went behind our backs and lost all the weight".  Okay, this kid is not only about 200 pounds lighter than the lot of fat kids, but he's also built like a god damn GI Joe.  Lost weight behind your backs?  YOU WOULD HAVE NOTICED THE WEIGHT LOSS.  So unless their friend went on a three year hiatus or a stint on The Biggest Loser, the audience's suspension of disbelief just isn't strong enough to believe that.  Continuity problems aside, THE DIALOGUE HAS IMPROPER SYNTAX.  "You're just a scared, little, pathetic, kid from Georgia who amount to nothing."  I believe the word you were looking for was "amounted" not "amount".  Then again, maybe the line delivered was supposed to be "amounted" and in that case, Brandon as an actor really, really needs to work on his enunciation. I hate to say it, but he is the largest reason why this short is so terrible.  His acting is distracting, and his writing brings it down.  The camera work is rather good and the editing is very clean.  The biggest problem, is Brandon Sites.

The actual storyline is absolutely ridiculous and if this is supposed to make me want to donate my hard earned cash to fund the feature version of this film, I'd rather donate my money to Chik-Fil-A before I'd donate to this garbage. I'm not here to rip on someone's hard work, but this film is part of a trend that desperately needs to end.  I'm talking about the kickstarter/indie gogo projects undeserving of our attention.  The writer/producer has been putting on social networking sites that he sees this film as a "future cult classic". In the words of the incomparable Kristin Wiig, are you fucking serious?  I'm sorry. I'm really sorry, but are you fucking serious?  The fact that people are actually donating to this piece of trite garbage makes me want to swallow drain cleaner.  The crew has shown promises of having Scream Queens Season 2's Sierra Holmes in the feature version and I want to just shake her and ask her what in the actual hell she is doing being associated with something this unwatchable.  There are so many wonderful, terrific, well-deserving films that must resort to indiegogo or kickstarter to help aide them in getting their films made, and then there's shit like Fat Kid Massacre that's only positive use would be using the disc as a coaster.  I'm all about supporting indie films, I am one of the largest supporters of indie films, but just because you're low budget...doesn't mean I have to support you.  Money can't buy a good storyline, and it can't prevent one either.   

To Sierra Holmes, Ryan Sandefur, Kaylee Williams, Alisa Lova, Aley Kreinz, and Shawn C. Phillips, I don't care how desperate for work you are, this is something that should be scrubbed from your resumes, immediately. Normally I'd post a link for the indiegogo, but honestly, this film doesn't deserve your money. If you really want to seek it out, you can do it for yourself.

THE PLIGHT OF PLATINUM: THE IMPORTANCE OF BLONDE WOMEN IN CLASSIC HORROR

"Blondes make the best victims. They're like virgin snow that shows up the bloody footprints." 

— Alfred Hitchcock

To be a person of virtue, one must possess the characteristics of being morally just and kind-hearted.  It is rather easy to determine whether or not a person is virtuous based on interactions with them, but to be able to convey cinematically that a person is of virtue, it unfortunately must be expressed through the way an actor or actress looks.  In the world of the early horror films, filmmakers did not have the luxury of time to develop the personalities and backstories of secondary characters.  Filmmakers were to generate a tale of a monster to scare the masses, and quite honestly, couldn't be bothered finding time to explain why the damsel in distress was worth anything other than eye candy and something for a monster to desire. The color white has often been associated with purity with everything from the garments warned by angels or the virginal appearance of a wedding gown, but in the years of early horror films, female characters were almost always blonde.  Now, before I continue on any further, I need to address an issue that is bound to flood the comment section.  Unfortunately, classic horror films did not feature many characters of minority descent, and especially did not feature them in leading roles.  That being said, please note that this article is merely a dissection of the importance of the portrayal of blonde women in classic horror films.  This isn't to say that the blondes were better actors or options, but merely artistic choices that have developed stigmas in films that are present even today.

Mary Philbin in The Man Who Laughs played the angelic and blind darling, Dea, the beauty in this "beauty and the beast-esque" horror tale.  While audiences remembered her as a brunette Christine Daae in The Phantom of the Opera it was her role in TMWL that she is most remembered for.  With porcelain skin and tresses that almost illuminated her appearance, Dea was the epitome of a pure, virtuous character.  Without even speaking a single line, audiences knew that Dea was a sweet, loving, innocent, and admirable woman.  The contrast of her snow-like features to the very dark shadows of Gwynplaine, the man with the forever smile was incredibly drastic, and audiences ate her up.  It was this moment that classic horror fell in love with blondes, and created a trend that would follow for decades to come.

Only three years later would horror again return with an etherial female lead.  Helen Chandler (a natural blonde) played Mina, the romantic victim interest of the monster who spawned a million movies, Dracula.  Mina was a character portrayed to be ultimately good, but also the ideal victim to Count Dracula.  The man had a handful of wives but there was something about Ms. Mina Harker he found himself drawn to.  Her blonde hair aided in letting audiences know not only that she was of pure regard, but that she was also the woman we were to pay attention to.  While Dracula was dressed in dark colors and wore darker makeup than most of the female actresses, Mina Harker was dressed in the color of moonlight to compliment the blonde hair adorning her head.  Heather Chandler was a very well known stage and film actress at this point, but choosing her as the lead was no accident. Many may argue the fact Chandler was a blonde is merely coincidental, but Dracula was the Universal monster movie that started the horror movie obsession and set the bar for the abundance of horror films created in the wake of its success. While The Hunchback of Notre Dame is cited as the first Universal monster film, it was Dracula that really got the ball rolling.

It has been said that once something happens three times, it is no longer coincidence, it's preference.  Witness Mae Clarke as the bride in Frankenstein.  Although she changed her hair color and styles frequently over the years, her decision to go blonde in 1925 inspired Anita Loos to create a character named Lorelei Lee for her novel Gentleman Prefer Blondes. Mae Clarke donned a white wedding gown and very light clothing styles for a majority of the film, but it is the scene in which Frankenstein's monster invades her room in preparation for her wedding that really set the blonde damsel into motion.  The extreme contrast of the elegant, white, blonde, woman stranded alone with the very dark, gloomy, brunette monster immediately allowed audiences to fear for her survival.  This isn't solely based on the fact she was trapped with a monster, but her blonde and light attributes gave the impression that she was not only an at-risk civilian, but also that she was innocent and very vulnerable.  

Quickly after Frankenstein, Boris Karloff donned monster makeup again as The Mummy.  Now, this is where the female lead throws a wrench into the formula.  The lead actress was Zita Johann, a brunette.  However, The Mummy is much like The Hunchback of Notre Dame in which the setting is to be an "exotic" land.  The 1920's-1930's was a time in which American audiences had a strong fear and sense of skepticism for those "foreign" to their country.  The All-American look was quickly becoming blonde haired, blue eyed women, and anything outside of this standard was viewed as different and therefore, fearful.  Another important aspect to remember is that unlike Count Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, and Gwynplaine: The Man Who Laughs- the Mummy was wrapped in very light garments.  The female lead needs to contrast to this and the only real option was to have a brunette actress.  Her hair color was used not to showcase her innocence or purity, but rather her exoticism and resemblance to an egyptian princess.  The same could be said to the leading lady of The Creature From The Black Lagoon.  Kay Lawrence was beautiful, yes, but she was in no way a damsel character. She breaks the mold, because her character doesn't fit the bill of the previous female leads in classic horror films.  Not only that, but the film was taking place in the Amazon, an exotic location.  (If we really must split hairs, the woman donned a white bathing suit for the most iconic scenes).

Much like their male counterparts, the female monster was nearly ALWAYS a dark featured, raven-haired beauty.  The Bride of Frankenstein, Dracula's Daughter, and Vampira emerged as horrifying female monsters armed with terrifying qualities and sex appeal that could turn any man into a puddle of what he once was.  Sex appeal was always an important aspect of horror, but unlike the blonde counterparts that were generated as virgins sprinkled with angel dust, the brunette monster was a lustful demoness with the ability to completely take down any man with a bat of an eyelash and a swivel of a hip.  Blondes definitely possessed sex appeal, but that's all they had.  There was no fear factor, just a pretty face to sympathize with.

It would appear that during the early days, the blonde female lead was the go-to for the damsel in distress archetype.  One of the most important factors in this reasoning is due solely on lack of color in films.  When you're dealing with literally fifty shades of gray, filmmakers didn't have much to choose from in terms of creating contrast.  Blondes, they just had to be it.  It wasn't until Alfred Hitchcock emerged as the filmmaking casanova he was with his infamous Icy Blondes, that toe-headed ladies were seen as anything more than the romantic and innocent survival darlings.  Hitchcock didn't follow any of the formulaic horror standards and completely changed the look of the genre.  Blondes were no longer the ideal candidate for the love interest, they were now the easiest targets for destruction.  Fast forward out of the days of black and white films and we are presented with a new type of blonde. The dumb blonde/slut/bitch character.  Damsels in distress were often seen as weak characters, and their only value to society was their beautiful outer appearances.  As the audience's views of women and the way female characters were written evolved, so did the blonde archetype.  The modern blonde woman only good for her looks now became sexually promiscuous, and the damsel unable to defend herself became a ditz.  Being instilled in the early days of film as the preferred look, blondes also developed into self-righteous bitches, generating the "evil blondes".

Even though they were all being massacred, blondes were still the preferred look.  Brunettes had emerged as the virginal final girls, surviving the killer with their pure hearts.  Blondes were still idolized and desired and no longer living in the sexually repressed times of the 1920's and 1930's, blondes were sexually lusted for and were the ones having sex.  Obviously brunettes were having sex too, but final girls instilled the idea that blondes were better than brunettes because they could get laid...but they were also going to be the first to die.  Obviously there are always exceptions to the rule, but this analysis is focusing on the status quo.  As the blonde female character changed, this in turn, forced the brunette to turn as well.  They've seemed to switch places, although the switching is sourced within their original portrayals of classic horror.  Female roles have continued to adapt and evolve and thanks to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, yes, even blondes can be badass monster killers.  The blonde haired women of classic horror have helped to determine the way that blondes are portrayed in films today, and arguably, the way they are continually perceived in society.  And red heads?  Well, they're an enigma all their own and considering they don't have souls...I'm not even going to touch on those weirdos :)