The Manipulation Games: 5 Ways To Make Katniss Everdeen A Less Horrible Character

I’ve ragged on The Hunger Games ever since the first movie came out, but I’ve really come to enjoy the story. It's "fascinatingly flexible political subtext" has been praised by Tea Partiers, Libertarians, feminists, Christians, environmentalists, Occupiers, and, of course, teenage girls everywhere. They all seem to love these movies, and that’s gotta count for something. 

I love the setting, the celebrity satire, the Libertarian political implications, and the good old-fashioned villainy of President Snow. It's also nice to see more stories where a woman is the hero, even if some people like to pretend that Clarice Starling and Buffy Summers never existed. The minimalist storytelling and symbolism make it more of an allegory, which is why it works. It's why fans of the franchise make for such interesting bedfellows. 

So it should go without saying that this critique of Katniss is not without some respect. But one thing is painfully and disappointingly certain to me after watching three of these movies: This saga could have been SO much better, if Katniss was not totally horrible. 

Some ascribe heroic attributes to Katniss that I find either erroneous, or just plain non-existent. They try to say that she’s a “new kind of Female Hero,” and they try to redefine what it means to be a hero in the context of a female (because heroism is totally not a universal concept at all, and it needs special explanations when it involves a woman).

I reject the notion of the Female Hero, because heroism doesn't have a gender. Love, honesty, selflessness, sacrifice, mercy, salvation, forgiveness, caring, teaching, and protecting are all traits that make both men and women heroic, whenever they exhibit these qualities. We don’t need a new definition of hero for females, and we certainly don’t need to talk about that heroism in terms of archaic paradigms like “patriarchy,” when the reality is much more complex.

But fans of the books can relax, because I'm not attacking them here. I haven't read them yet, so I'm just sticking to the movies. It's possible that some may read this and agree that I've hit on many of the problems that make the movies weaker overall than the books. I'll let you be the judge. 

Sixty percent of adults who saw The Hunger Games did not read the book. Many of these people will probably never read the books, but are just as likely to read shorter, easily digestible blogs like this one that iconizes Katniss. This makes an analysis of Katniss based solely on the movies entirely relevant. 

Katniss is surely the least interesting or compelling character in the series, and it’s a shame that she’s at the center of it. But if we’re going to start throwing around the word ‘hero’, I suggest applying the brake for just a minute. Katniss is no hero, but here are a few ways she might have become one. 

1. A better Call to Adventure.

When a hero begins his or her journey, it is never by accident. Not really. It begins with desire. Like Sidhhartha Guatama meeting an old man by chance before becoming the Buddha. Like Alice chasing the white rabbit into the hole. It looks like a chance happening, but it reflects a deep desire for change.

But the desire Katniss has is not to secure a more prosperous life for the people of Panem, it's merely to survive. If her desire really was to change the world of Panem (if only subconsciously), why not raise the stakes and test her?

For example, suppose Prim had been chosen, but Katniss was not allowed to volunteer. Prim goes to the games anyway, and Katniss must save her. It's not just her saving her own ass, but now there's a sense of urgency. It would be even more telling if it was someone other than Prim. Now THAT’S a story.

Instead, what happens is Katniss spends three movies trying to decide if she wants to be part of the rebellion, or if she just wants to save herself. Volunteering for the games is brave and heroic, for sure, but it feels more like a plot device than a genuine call to adventure. It's just an easy way to get the story started. 

"Don't worry... I have my plot device with me!"

At the very least, it should have been clear from the start that Prim’s life would be ended or changed dramatically if Katniss didn’t play ball. This was never made clear in the movies. One line of dialogue early on would have helped. Or when Snow finally does threaten the life of her loved ones in the second movie, by that point it’s not a threat anymore. He just delivers Gail’s body to her doorstep covered in white roses. 

That’s a story, too.

There are SO many other ways the stakes could have been raised at the beginning, but Suzanne Collins treats her with kid gloves from the word go. Nobody realizes it because the first decision she makes — to volunteer — is enough to win most people over. 

But I didn’t buy it. It’s a plot device.

2. Don’t let her off easy. Make her own her actions.

Whenever Katniss is said to fit the “Female Hero” archetype, it’s said that this is because the Female Hero doesn’t resort to violence to solve problems. She’s better than that, some argue, and it just goes to show how the competitive and violent system of patriarchy (i.e. The Games) is evil, but the more compassionate and humanitarian approach of women is better. 

This archetype honestly sounds intriguing, but it certainly doesn't describe Katniss at all.

Katniss is a murderer. When push came to shove, she chose to kill. Three times. In the first movie, she kills a girl with tracker jackers, she kills Rue’s murderer, and she shoots Cato at the end. And the problem is that each of these acts is portrayed in such a way that Katniss emerges morally unscathed, even when she probably shouldn't.

Killing the girl with the tracker jackers is indirect, so it doesn't feel like she really did it. There’s no knife. No blood. Plus, she wasn’t really trying to kill any of them anyway, right? Just escape? She can’t be blamed. And in the end, it was all Rue’s idea, anyway. Katniss did nothing wrong. 

And she could hardly be blamed for killing Rue’s killer, either. It happens so fast, it almost feels like an accident that it happened at all. It is more convenient that it happened this way than, say, if he had successfully killed Rue, then got away. What would Katniss do then? Avenge her? She never has to make that decision, because it happens in self-defense, and it's over quickly. It's what anyone would have done, see?

And even more slippery is the depiction of Cato's death. Cato is a great tragic hero that spends so much of the movie, and his life, devoted to killing. It’s in his blood. Then, in his final moments, he is stripped of this identity. Once he knows he’s going to die, he has this beautiful realization that he is nothing without killing. It’s really sad, but powerful. If Katniss was really a hero, she might have shown him mercy right away. But not only is she responsible for killing him, it is Peeta that actually pushes him into the dogs to get eaten alive. He does the dirty work, so that she can come in after the fact and THEN show him mercy by killing him (which she could have just done by shooting him in the head in the first place, and spare him the agony of getting ripped apart by dogs). 

This is very manipulative storytelling. 

No patriarchy's gonna make me a killer. I will show you the loving,
cooperative way of the feminine. But stand still, first.

Nothing solves Katniss’ problems quicker than all the other tributes killing each other. If it were not written in this way, we might have gotten to see a little bit of this cooperative behavior Katniss is so often credited with displaying.  She is written in such a way that one has to make great leaps in logic to assume that she is innocent. But she is not.  She doesn’t lead anyone or develop schemes for building resistance, she just sticks to the sidelines while everyone around her acts heroically, often sacrificing themselves completely. 

She does nothing, and she lives.

3. More independent thought.

For a character that is regarded as a feminist icon, she sure does seem to do what men tell her to an awful lot. 

She bickers with Haymitch at first, but she does as he says. She even begs him for help in the second movie, just after offering condolences to one of the districts. Haymitch tells her to keep her mouth shut, and she does. Cinna also puts her up to quite a lot of things before the games. Things like, you know, burning. Like, with real fire. The kind of thing you do to marshmallows. But she goes along with it. She asserts herself in no way. 

Flammability. One of Katniss' many talents. 

She consistently relies on Peeta and Gail for emotional comfort whenever it is convenient for her, and it gets so bad that they have to confront her about this directly. As a result, her love for Peeta, in my opinion, comes across more as a fleeting neediness than a genuine romance. So many fans have made excuses for Katniss here, trying to argue just how hard she has it. I would say that, at least for the first two movies, she didn't have it hard enough. And I think Joanna would agree with me. 

Her affection for Peeta kept her alive, and was both emotionally and literally convenient. You can't tell me she wasn't at least a little relieved to find this brilliant strategy successful. Hell, it's her idea to marry him in the second movie! She'll do anything to stay alive, it seems.

The first time she does actually stand up to someone and assert herself is actually to a woman, believe it or not: President Coin. She wishes to use Katniss for a series of propaganda films at the beginning of Mockingjay: Part 1, and that is when Katniss suddenly discovers the power of negotiation. One of the strongest actions she takes in the series is of a competitive sort that one might traditionally regard as masculine. It is not her mediating a dispute in order to find a peaceful resolution, but a bold confrontation by one who knows her own value and uses it as leverage as one might do in a marketplace. 

My only disappointment is that she uses this leverage to save a boy, making her no more heroic than Bella Swan. That’s right, I said it.

4. More heroism. 

The really heroic decision that I kept waiting for her to make is the one that took her three movies to make: joining the rebellion. Instead, the primary tension is derived from Katniss’ struggle to not get killed. And unless you’re going to go full Rambo with this idea, this is a recipe for boredom. 

The problem is that she only makes two decisions that demonstrate her heroism in the first film. Only two acts that demonstrate that, to Katniss, there is another world out there. It’s not all about her. 

Only two: volunteering for the games, and memorializing Rue’s death. 

That’s it.

You might think there’s more, but there’s not. Heroism is not just about one’s ability to shoot an arrow or medicate a loved one’s injuries. These are skills, not acts of heroism. 

Katniss tells Gail that during her travels with Peeta through the districts that people are rebelling, but she sounds very casual. Like, “Hey, guess what I heard today?” She stays inside her own bubble, and is shocked when the suffering around her gets worse. She acts like it's not her problem, and it doesn't even seem to cross her mind to change it until it's too late. She sticks to survival.

"You mean these buildings used to have people
in them? Where did they all go?"

It would be heroic if she actually went around town and told everyone what she’d seen, knowing that she would get into big trouble for doing so. Or she could at least convince someone to do it for her. She could do something. Anything. She could demonstrate that she cares about society, and wishes to be a part of changing it.

The memorial of Rue’s death is not something I even considered heroic the first time I watched it. But after my Hunger Games-loving family chastised me at Thanksgiving for not noticing how defiant such an act would have been in Panem, I conceded. To do this, in spite of what the authorities would say or do, is heroic (even if it wasn't made all that clear in the movie, it can still be argued on the basis of the movie alone). 

She almost acts heroically in Catching Fire when she speaks to a district like an actual human being. But when someone is killed for producing the Mockingjay hand gesture, she immediately seeks to absolve herself of responsibility. It is clear that she had no idea what such an action would cause, and once she knows it, she goes back to being Snow’s mouthpiece. 

There are so few actions of true heroism on her part when you really examine it, it is remarkable. If you look at other offerings in the genre of young adult fiction, you find much more heroism.

Yes, Bella Swan from Twilight performs more acts of heroism than Katniss. She also performs more of these acts with each movie, while Katniss does not. Doesn’t mean Twilight is a better story, or that Bella is a more interesting character. But she is more heroic. 

I know, it surprised me, too.

Even Rue is more heroic than Katniss. She was already doing stuff during training, like hiding the knife, and she actually did reach out to Katniss to form a friendship, not the other way around. She helped Katniss escape the tree, and protected her while she healed. Rue’s actually kind of badass, but the reason Rue is heroic is because she’s thinking about others all the time. She has family back in her district, too, but it doesn’t stop her from actually doing something for those around her, even if it would get her in trouble. 

And in case you think I’m forgetting the moment she and Peeta nearly pull a Romeo and Juliet at the end of the first film, I’m not forgetting. 

This is probably the worst scene in the movie. 

When this happened, my first thought was, “So I guess it’s certain that Prim’s not in any real danger, and never has been.” Because one of two things is true: Prim is in danger, and any misstep that might be seen as defiance will result in her death (hence, this scene should result in Prim's death or at least inprisonment); or she’s not in any real danger (not yet, anyway), and Katniss is actually a coward that has been using Prim as an excuse to not join the rebellion. 

Everyone else in the movie seems to be way more willing to step up than Katniss. Even Prim basically tells her, "Dude... I'm fine. Stop being such a coward." 

Heroism In One Lesson. (Hint: Do this.)

The fact that Prim's endangerment is so uncertain is a huge structural flaw in the movie. Fans of the book assure me that it’s more clear in the book that Prim is in danger, and I’ll have to take their word for it. But even if Prim was in danger, then why does this action not result in her death, like, immediately? And why is she let off so easy?

And that brings me to the final point…

5. More opportunity for heroism.

Even if Katniss was not written to be an opportunistic coward, the story still doesn’t give her much chance to grow. The spinelessness and unwillingness to take risks and defy President Snow are only part of the problem with Katniss Everdeen. 

So many chances do come up where a more skilled writer might have put an obstacle in her way and force her to act heroically, but Suzanne Collins deprives us. The scene with the berries is one of those scenes. Kid gloves for the win.

If Seneca Crane had told her, prior to the revoking of the two-winner rule, that she would be forced to choose between Prim and Peeta, that would not only clarify the danger, but force Katniss to make the kind of choice only heroes face. 

So many heroes have, in fact. Spiderman responds by saving both the people in the ferry and Mary Jane. Batman is tricked in The Dark Knight, and ends up losing Rachel in his choice. There are so many ways such a scenario might end, and they all tell us something about the hero. And in the best cases, they change him/her forever.

But Katniss is no different after the berry scene than she was before it. And she never has to make this choice.

In fact, the first two movies are an experiment in torturing the audience with missed opportunities for heroism. Does she use her moments in the spotlight to send a message to all the people in Panem, veiled or not? Does she actively engage with other tributes who perhaps think like her, if only to distinguish the good from the bad? And once in the games, is there any coalition-building, or planning of any kind (aside from mere survival)? What kind of hero just doesn’t get involved with the fate of others at all?

If I act more like Katniss, she's bound to notice me!

In Catching Fire she tries to find allies because Haymitch tells her to, but she's really bad at it. She doesn't really play a role in any of the scheming in the Quarter Quell, but her one heroic deed of the movie comes at the very end, when she shoots the coil. It's the only moment in the film where Katniss seems to want to be a part of destroying what the Capitol stands for. In every other scene before this, she is not active, but merely reactive. She makes nothing happen. She can't even do CPR, for Peeta's sake.

The main problem - the main reason why Katniss takes very little heroic action -  stems from the fact that, based on her actions, she is a coward. But it is a problem that a more experienced writer might have gotten out of the way with the first movie, by making Katniss choose between Peeta and Prim. No matter what she chooses or how it ends, the test is necessary. 

She's never really tested in a dramatic sense. It is the reason why her arc has still not gotten very far three movies later. The author could have proven, at least by the end of the first film, that Katniss has what it takes to act heroically - loved ones' death be-damned. 

She uses Prim as an excuse not to do anything, and she gets away with it because that's how she's written. That is why she's not a hero. 

Like a statesman tells Mel Gibson's character in The Patriot, "Wars are not fought by childless men alone." Because heroism often means sacrifice. It's like Jack Bauer pressing on, even though his daughter's life continues to be in danger because of what he does - not to mention losing his wife. Or the multiple threats to Buffy's mom; or Ben Sisko's son, Jake; or any of the countless companions the Doctor has had over the years. 

Heroes deal with it to no end, so why does Katniss get to act reptilian with impunity all the time?

Tris: Becomes badass... takes action... two family members die... continues badassary.

Just because someone you love might be hurt by taking action, that's no excuse. That's why being a hero is a job nobody wants. 

So stop making excuses for Katniss. 

Last thoughts…

In the next year, hopefully I will have read the books in time for the final film. It’s very likely that my opinion of the Katniss of the books will be slightly different, but we'll see. If the movies are to blame for the lack of character development, then I doubt one more film will fix this. 

But even if Katniss does magically step up and be a genuine hero, it will have been too little too late. It may even be undeserved. Even considering her negotiating with Coin, I'm not convinced that she has what it takes to be a hero. Survive? Surely. Be a role model for others to follow? Not so much.

What do you think about this critique? Did I capture the problems with Katniss well, or am I way off? Tell me about it in the comments. 

All The Horror Films Of John Carpenter, Ranked

In honor of Halloween, I thought I'd take a break from my series of world horror cinema and look at the filmmaker best known for the slasher that everyone's watching tonight. 

Halloween is actually unique among Carpenter horror films in many respects, including the fact that it's technically not a sci-fi film. Science fiction is actually the genre in which he feels most comfortable, and I highly recommend you check out his other non-horror sci-fi films as well. Dark Star is really nutty and bizarre (and even inspired many great films of the seventies, including Jaws and Star Wars). Starman is also not just one of Carpenter's best films, but possibly one of the best science fiction films ever made. And that's saying a lot for a romcom!

But it's safe to say that all of Carpenter's films are science fiction, because they are all assumed to take place in reality. Even if it's about the end of days, and it's a biblical apocalypse film like Prince of Darkness, there is always the unspoken assumption in Carpenter's movies that these things are scary not because they defy logic and reason, but because they are totally possible! That's why he does it. 

You can tell that he loves explaining at length how something is plausible in the known universe we live in, so that it's all the scarier. There are a few exceptions (like Christine), but this is probably what defines the horror of John Carpenter. That, and it's usually pretty physical, with lots of blood and body parts (in this way, Halloween is also unique, because there's really not that much blood or violence in it at all). 

I will say no more. Here's all of them, ranked as I enjoyed them. 


11. Village of the Damned (1996)
Subgenres: Sci-fi, Alien
Availability: filenuke (has popup ads)

At least in terms of horror, this was, in my opinion, Carpenter’s first major failure. And it’s not kinda sorta bad. It’s train-wreck-in-the-Alps bad. I have no clue what he was trying to accomplish with this film. Was it a comment on the lack of empathy in the mid-nineties youth culture? Was it an homage to classic ’50’s sci-fi classics? Or was it merely something that paid the bills for a once-beloved filmmaker now falling out of favor? I’m betting on the latter. And I can forgive him for it.

The script has milk-toast dialogue, muddled and unconvincing philosophical digressions, contrived scenarios, and a totally unnecessary government subplot. The acting is passable for some characters, but is, for the most part, excrutiatingly bad. As in, I’d prefer water-boarding. And not bad in a fun way, either. It even has a preacher asking, “What about those who have no soul?” Give me a break. No preacher talks like that. Just a bad movie all around, I’m sorry to say.

10. Ghosts of Mars (2001)

Subgenres: Sci-fi, Action, Paranormal

Availability: ffilms

This movie is all style and no substance. I like the idea of ghosts that take self-mutilation to extremes when possessing bodies, and the alien-invasion-in-reverse premise is a neat idea. The only problem is that it's just not scary at all, and the acting is pretty terrible all around. There isn't even a James Woods or a Jeff Bridges in sight to make it watchable.

Whenever anything happens, I just think, "Ok, that happened." I would make suggestions on how the script could have been rewritten, but I have no idea what the film was trying to be in the first place (prison break, traditional ghost, mere spectacle, etc...who knows?!) But this line should tell you all the need to know (from the film's supposed heroine): "What if we blow up the nuclear power plant? That would cause a huge explosion, right?" 

End scene.

9. The Fog (1980)
Genres: Ghost, Zombie
Availability: ffilms.org

Carpenter’s second horror film basically has the same structure as Halloween, and it showcases a lot of the style that he is now known for. The fog that brings the ghosts of murderers back into a quiet harbor town is very cool to watch. 

But I agree with Ebert on this movie: it needs a better villain. It looks amazing, and the atmosphere created is very spooky, even if the music feels derivative. But I have no idea why the town is really being terrorized, or who is in danger. Is it the whole town, or just the descendents of those who murdered the victims who would go on haunting the town? 

It also doesn’t give the characters a whole lot to do. Jamie Lee Curtis plays a vagabond bound for Vancouver, but she does absolutely nothing. Even the radio DJ, whose location is in one hell of a cool place, doesn’t seem to have much to add other than shouting into a microphone. Her character could have been way more useful and interesting, not to mention the town’s inhabitants, whose reaction to the films events is largely absent. 

There’s no lesson learned, and there’s no “aha!” moment, where the town comes to grips with its newfound historical perspective. Again, this film looks amazing, but the story is lacking. Not Carpenter’s best work, but worth a look if you plan to use a smoke machine in your movie.

8. Christine (1983)

Genres: Supernatural, Ghost, Comedy
Availability: Putlocker (free, but you have to close some popups)

I believe we all owe John Carpenter an apology for hating on this movie when it came out, and for the legacy of hating this movie, and for throwing parties with popcorn and punch so that we can all hate this movie together. Poor Christine is just misunderstood, because I now believe, after rewatching it oh so many years later, that this is a comedy.

The premise is ludicrous, but Carpenter jumped at the chance to tell this story because, well, it paid the bills. After The Thing underperformed, this film was the best thing he could find. But the B-movie premise is actually perfectly suited for someone like him, who does his best work on a small scale. This film would have been the perfect opportunity for Carpenter to completely go the Michael Bay route for filmmaking. I mean, for a film about a haunted, homicidal hot rod, you’d expect there to be more car chases!

But there’s a lot to appreciate about the film. The biggest thing for me is how completely foreign some of the archetypes are nowadays. The bad guys are the greasers, while the moral center of the film is a well-mannered and loyal football player. The wimpy kid that everyone picks on actually turns out to be the anti-hero, and his descent into evil is fun. It’s also total understandable. It’s not a perfect film, but if you watch it like a comedy, some of the more silly killer-car stuff is a real treat. And the film even ends on a joke.

7. In the Mouth of Madness (1995)
Subgenres: Apocalypse, Cosmic
Availability: Putlocker

I have mixed feelings about this film. On the one hand, the premise of an insurance fraud investigator being hired to find a horror writer whose work seems to be turning its readers into paranoid schizoids is quite intriguing. If the film suffers because of this premise, it’s a lack of timing. He’s making a Cold War-era horror film in the middle of the first post-Cold War decade. The image of an empty Everytown USA, with its creepy kids, menacing steeples, and implied moral panic would have done better at the box office, had it been made ten years earlier.

But my problem with the film is not the context, but what Carpenter fails to do with such a great idea. The sinister soundtrack of his earlier films is replaced with inappropriate pop rock songs, and other atmospheric elements found his classic films are also absent. This film just doesn’t feel like a Carpenter flick. It’s not really that scary, and the second half is unnecessarily confusing, with an ending that makes no sense at all. 

On the other hand, I do love me some Lovecraft. And this is one of the few films that sticks to the spirit of cosmic horror the way Lovecraft intended it. And there are grotesque ghouls and monsters aplenty in this flick. In that sense, at least, there’s enough classic Carpenter in this film to make it enjoyable.

6. Vampires (1998)
Subgenres: Supernatural, Action
Availability: Youtube

Carpenter’s take on vampires actually makes this now-tired creature scary once again. Prior to seeing this film, I can’t tell you how many times I had this exact thought: “If vampires have superhuman strength, how come none of them ever punch through someone’s chest? They could, couldn’t they?” And imagine my excitement when, twenty minutes into Vampires, this actually happens.

Aside from some unevenly written dialogue in the beginning, the story is very suspenseful, with fleshed out characters and realistic scares throughout. The peculiarities of the ritual involved in the climax seems a tad bit too clean, but by that point I didn’t care. I’d seen enough that I could forgive the film a few plot devices. Like the protagonist, I am also tired of seeing well-groomed and sentimental vampires, because that’s not scary. I want the ones that are pure evil, rip old ladies throats out, and don’t go down easy. I also love that this is basically a western, but with vampires. This time, Carpenter’s atypical music choice, the steel guitar, works perfectly.

5. Body Bags (1992)
Subgenres: Anthology, Comedy, Camp
Availability: Youtube

This movie is like Carpenter’s career interlude, where he takes a break from scaring the hell out of people to embellish the fun he and other horror greats have had scaring the hell out of people. It was intended to be the pilot for a TV show that Showtime paid for, but never ordered a whole series of. It’s an anthology show in the vein of Tales from the Crypt, and it’s a lot of fun.

The first story is the only real weakness of the film for me. It’s so painfully contrived, and if it had a bit more comedic timing and camp like the rest of the film, those contrivances might have worked in its favor. The second story seems like something out of a different movie entirely, until the disturbing reveal at the end. And the final installment, directed by Tobe Hooper (Poltergeist, Texas Chainsaw Massacre) was also enjoyable in the familiar, axe-murderer, drive-in-movie sort of way.

But despite the weaknesses, it’s worth it to see the many cameos. You know that Carpenter is not only a brilliant horror filmmaker, but also a highly respected one as well. He would have to be to get Sam Raimi, Wes Craven, Roger Corman and Tobe Hooper all in this movie! It’s like the who’s who of modern horror. And Carpenter himself narrates in a performance that was probably inspired by Beetlejuice, and with some snappy dialogue.

4. They Live (1988)

Subgenres: Sci-fi, Alien, Social Science, Comedy

Availability: putlocker

This is another Carpenter flick that developed a cult following, but did poorly upon its release. The fact that the film was critiquing Reaganomics in a time when Reaganomics was still popular might have had a lot to do with that.  But there's more to the film than its economic theory, which I personally disagree with (no one would argue, say, that Carpenter, being one of the goons theoretically profiting from such a premise, is doing anything wrong).

But leaving all that aside, I still find this film entertaining. The famous bubble-gum line is hilarious, the fight scene between Nada and Armitage feels so authentically simple, and you're never bored, even until the credits roll. 

My favorite moment in the film, though, is the moment Roddy Piper's individualistic drifter character realizes that aliens are running things. It happens early, and his response is to chuckle, like he's always suspected it, and to say, "It figures it would be something like this." This movie moves along pretty quickly, and it's such good fun.

3. The Prince of Darkness (1987)
Subgenres: Religious, Sci-fi, Zombie
Availability: vidbux

This is another one of Carpenter’s under-rated ventures into horror. After Starman, which was a legitimate but unsuccessful effort to gain prominence as a maker of science fiction with mass market appeal (such as the very similar ET), he apparently wanted to return to good old fashioned B-movie fun. And I’m grateful for it.

This movie is one of the best marriages I’ve ever seen of a legitimate, religious horror film about the Apocalypse, and high-level science fiction. The scientists in the film do their sciency thing long enough to convince us that demons are real and that we all missed the point of religion. Evil is not an intangible inner struggle, it is a physical substance that exists in the space between the things science has discovered. Oh, and Jesus was an extraterrestrial sent to warn us about it.

Once again, though, Carpenter takes what sounds like a hokey premise on paper, and translates it to something truly scary and bizarre. There is lots of foreboding music, horrifying set pieces, zombies that turn into bugs, and Alice Cooper. I won’t say that everything in this film makes sense, but it’s the sort of film that you can’t look away from. The last film that had a soundtrack this filled with the essence of cosmic dread was Contagion, so if you’ve seen that film, you know what this one’s like. It’s not Carpenter’s most accessible film, but true horror fans should definitely check it out.

2. Halloween (1978)
Genres: Horror, Thriller, Slasher
Availability: Youtube, Putlocker (better quality)

The mother of all slasher films will always be Psycho, but the film that set the standard for all the tropes used in modern slasher films was without question Halloween. It came before Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street, and all the rest. And you may be disappointed in me, but I hadn’t seen this film at all until I wrote this blog. That’s a whole, miserable childhood without Mike Myers to spook me into believing in the Boogeyman. 

Having seen all of Carpenter's horror films, you could almost say that Michael Myers' psychosis is just another manifestation of the cosmic horror that exists all around us. He takes great pains to set up the plausibility of the scenario, just like good science fiction does, and then it is all downhill. 

For a film that made the rules that are still followed in this genre, there is surprisingly little violence or gore. But all the conventions are there: sexually promiscuous teens, the detective hot on the trail (but ultimately useless), the virtuous and virginal Final Girl, the vegetable knife, and of course the mask. There’s always a mask. I really enjoyed this movie, and I think it still holds up today. 

1. The Thing (1982)
Genres: Sci-fi, Apocalypse, Alien
Availability: Putlocker (free, but you have to close some popups)

Ok, here’s a confession: I really used this blog as an excuse to talk about this movie. This has always been in my top 5 favorite horror movies of all time, and it still is. Not only did this terrify me as a child, but it still holds up. I get chills every time I watch it.

A lot of people don’t think of this film as being part of the Apocalypse genre, but Carpenter has said himself that he thinks of it as being the first in his “Apocalypse” trilogy (the other two being Prince of Darkness and In the Mouth of Madness). This is why Carpenter was so ahead of his time. Nowadays, when we think Apocalypse, we think asteroids, superviruses and zombies. But Carpenter did with this film what he does best: strip a story to it’s barest essentials. It’s a bunch of dudes trapped on an Antarctic station with a shapeshifting alien that could end all life on Earth if it makes it off the continent. That’s pretty damn Apocalyptic.

My favorite thing about the film is the monster FX. The least interesting (and, thankfully, least utilized) technique used in the film is stop motion. All the really cool stuff, however, was done with pretty much every practical mould and model you could make. For a fan of old-school, in-camera special effects, the ones used in this film are just delightful, and still hold up today. You would never see a film this creatively executed in today’s CGI-dominated industry. I could go on and on about this film, but I won’t. If you see no other horror film on this list, see this one. 

Dog-Thing says Happy Halloween!

Singing And Dancing With Ghosts And Zombies: A (Tragically Incomplete) Look At Bollywood Horror

Today is Diwali, which is the biggest holiday in India. So Happy Diwali! 

I made a special effort to review Bollywood films because the closest analog to Halloween in India is Naraka Chaturdasi (also known as Kali Chaudas and many other names). It falls on the second day of Diwali, which is a five-day festival that celebrates happiness, rebirth, and the triumph of good over evil. 

Diwali is huge. It's like Easter, July 4th, Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years all rolled into one five-day holiday. Naraka Chaturdasi was technically yesterday (Wednesday), but the main celebration of Diwali is going on today.

It’s hard for me to really speak with authority on the traditions practiced during Diwali or, in particular, on Naraka Chaturdasi. Part of this is because, being that India is a huge country, these traditions vary from region to region. It is the part of the festival where certain observers of the holiday ward off evil spirits with things like Rangoli patterns. In the small West Indian state of Goa, the people even burn effigies of Narakusura, the demon that was defeated by Krishna and Kali, to further symbolize good destroying evil. 

Kali: The Mother of all show-offs.

For those who know nothing about Bollywood, the most important thing to know is that it’s BIG. Like, Makes Titanic Look Like A Tugboat big. It’s also incorrectly assumed to represent the whole of Indian cinema, when in fact it is just one of many film industries in India. The word is a portmantau of “Bombay” and “Hollywood,” because it’s based in Bombay.

India actually produces more films than America (if you can believe it), and Bollywood films have more viewers than Hollywood. Indian films also make more money in America than films from any other country producing non-English-speaking films. And the popularity of these films is only growing.

If you have ever seen a Bollywood film, you’ve probably seen a lot of singing and dancing, with stories that involve lots of action, romance, comedy and (oddly) kidnappings! But these are actually “masala” films, which is just one genre out of many genres in India. They are so-named because, like the mix of spices, the films are a blend of many genres. They are also typically 3-hours long, so you’re kinda committing to an evening when sitting down to watch one.

Horror is a popular genre as well, as it turns out. There are so many that if you watch one a day, it may take you years to see them all. The ones I was able to actually find subtitles for and review were all pretty popular masala films, too. At least I think they are. 

Something that is true even of the films I tried to watch is that the biggest monster in Bollywood films is without a doubt the ghost. Being a people with very religious roots, the ghost story is as popular for them as zombies are for Americans right now. 

Here’s something interesting, though: Because the ghosts in these stories manifest physically and, in one case at least, become resurrected, you could say that zombies are a staple in Indian horror as well. The funny thing is, though, that there’s no Hindi word for zombie. 

I know it’s sad, but when it’s around Halloween and you hear about a country that has no word for zombie, it’s like finding out that some people have never seen snow. It just breaks your heart. 

Don't tell Sad Zombie. It might crush him.

Anyways, one of the biggest differences you notice between American ghost stories and Bollywood ghost stories is that all of the back story is given to you at the beginning. American ghost stories tend to be more investigative, like a detective story, whereas a Bollywood story is more like a parable, like the Prodigal Son.

Another big thing (I already mentioned) is that these ghosts can take physical form, and are not simply possessing bodies like in The Exorcist or The Shining. They are monsters that bite and kill, and sometimes they enslave people like traditional voodoo zombies used to.

This entry is going to be short, because I didn’t have enough time to find a copy of the other Bollywood horror films I wanted to look at, at least not with subtitles. It’s a shame, I know.  And considering how huge Bollywood is, I’m actually kind of surprised that this was a challenge at all.

So check out these three films. At some point in the future, I will revisit Indian cinema, and I’ll probably look at it by region. Until then, here are some spooky movies, courtesy of Kali And The Coffin-shakers.

Nagin (1976)
Subgenres: Fantasy, Folk Tale, Thriller
Availability: Youtube
Directed by: Rajkumar Kohli

Some might not call this a horror movie, but I think it is. It is the story of a mythical snake-woman who avenges the death of her lover. A group of six men are targeted, and one by one, she seduces them and kills them. 

What is interesting about the story is not so much the suspense of seeing if they stop her, but in the various ways in which she tricks them and ambushes them. At one point, she convinces a man to give into her by appealing to his upbringing as a poor man. The story is not just about some angry female spirit, but seems to be saying something about the various flaws and moral weaknesses in men. 

The other thing that's kinda trippy about this film is the production design. The sets and wardrobe all seem to be heavily influenced by 60's American trends and psychedelia. Overall, I thought this film was fun, even with the low production quality and cheap special effects. You know me and my love for cheap FX.

Jaani Dushman (1979)
Subgenres: Ghost, Musical, Melodrama, Comedy
Availability: Veoh

Directed by: Rajkumar Kohli

Another film by Kohli, this film was a huge hit in India, despite facing some resistance from the censor boards. It’s spawned a few sequels and one remake, but is still consider not just a classic horror film in India, but one of the great Bollywood films period.

If you watch the first thirteen minutes and are not totally hooked, there just might be something wrong with you. It has the familiar travelers-with-a-flat-tire-seek-help-in-spooky-mansion trope, but director Rajkumar Kohli makes it his own. It’s complete with the wind-swept and stormy sets, highly melodramatic music and cheesy over-acting for which Bollywood films are famous. 

Oh, and it has the creepy Kali-Ma dude from The Temple of Doom.

Where have I seen you before?
Do you sacrifice around here often?

There’s very little time to breath during the opening sequence. When the spirit living in the house explains that he killed his betrothed because she was planning to sleep with another man on their wedding night, he became forever a monster. His face appears in a large picture frame using (probably) rear projection, then he appears again, also (probably) using rear projection. 

The old-school special effects are also used wonderfully whenever the possessed person turns into a monster. Some might regard these effects as being bad, but I think it makes these scenes super creepy. In fact, one of the disappointments in the final scene is that these effects are not utilized as much, so it looks like a man in a monster suit. 

But the really innovative film technique is the quick editing, because it marries perfectly with the acting. At several points throughout the movie, the spirit of the murderer flips out whenever he sees a Bride to be in her red wedding dress. It accompanies a rapid series of zooms, creating lots of tension. 

There’s a lot to love, but like the other films on this list, you may have to love Bollywood to enjoy this whole film. Throughout the film, a series of awful arranged marriages end as the monster picks off the brides one by one during the procession to the wedding. A very funny outsider character in the form of a crazy schemer provides something of a Greek chorus, occasionally breaking the fourth wall and addressing the audience directly. And best of all for an Alice in Wonderland lover like myself are all the Mad Hatter jokes made at the expense of a village that begins to look like something out of Salem.

I wish the relationships were a bit clearer, but that might be due to the fast pace, and I can only read subtitles so fast. At least one of the brides died before I realized who she was supposed to marry in the first place, so oops on that one. But overall, this movie was a lot of fun. Especially the beginning.

Purana Mandir (1984)
Subgenres: Ghost, Zombie, Religious
Availability: Youtube
Directed by: Tulsi and Shyam Ramsay

No list of Bollywood horror films would be complete without at least one film by the Ramsay brothers. They are perhaps the most well-known horror filmmakers in India, and because they churned out films as rapidly as Roger Corman, there are many of them. But several sources have suggested that Purana Mandir is, if not their best, at least the best example of their style. One blogger describes it as “the horror film of Bollywood.”

The story begins 200 years ago, when a demon named Saamri is captured by a lord and then beheaded. His body is buried behind a temple, while his head is locked up in chains and protected with the Trident of Shiva. But before he is beheaded, he curses the lord so that none of his female heirs survive child birth, and that if his head and body are one day reconnected, that the lord’s dynasty would end.

This movie proves that there’s nothing more romantic than slaying a demon in order to woo a girl. The songs in this movie seemed very eclectic for a Bollywood film, and there were some genuinely scary moments. The poor girl in the film seemed to suffer the bulk of the scares, so much so that I even started to wonder why the men always seemed to disappear right before the demon shows up. 

Top sign you're in a horror movie: The literal blood bath.

Some of the subplots are a little distracting and pointless, but one of them was at least disturbing in a good way. Towards the end, as the pretty young people are trying to find the recently resurrected Saamri and kill him, a cult shows up out of nowhere. They want to sacrifice the heroine and her lover to Kali, and then a super creepy Bollywood dance number happens. It might be the most interesting and original scene in the movie, even though I’m not really sure why it’s in there.

Overall, the film feels more like a genuine horror film with some musical elements added in. Other than the creepy cult song, the non-lyrical music is way more interesting than the songs. It’s intense, like an Argento soundtrack. There isn’t as much humor in this film as others on this list, but it’s fun to watch. It’s different. And I'm pretty sure some shots in Indiana Jones were totally ripped from this movie.

***

The films I have yet to see, but want to, are: Raat, Bhoot, Vaastu Shastra and Raaz. If you find any of those films with subtitles, send me a link!