It's not cool to burn in Hell

[vovat]

bethje and I have been continuing with our annual watching of Halloween-related material. On Wednesday night, we watched the Charlie Brown Halloween special. One thing I noticed about it this time, which I'd actually noticed before but never really said anything about, was how the town layout is pretty weird. I mean, nobody's house seems to be on an actual street. I'm not sure if that's how it works in every Peanuts special, but the Christmas and Halloween ones are like that.

On Thursday night, we watched Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3 and Hell House. The former wasn't particularly good. It had its moments, but it was definitely worse than the first two films in the series. It was slow, and I didn't really like Leatherface's family members much this time around. Besides, where did they come from? I thought we'd seen his entire surviving family (mostly brothers) in the first two parts. Also, it seemed to present Leatherface not just as a weird serial killer with a mask, but as someone with supernatural powers, which doesn't really fit the character. I mean, it's not like he became some kind of Freddy Krueger or Michael Myers, but he was practically invincible, and was apparently able to move really quickly. It kind of ruined the more realistic portrayal they had given him in the other movies.

Hell House was really very disturbing. It was a documentary about the haunted houses that fundamentalist Christians set up around Halloween to scare people into joining their religion. What disturbed me most about the film was how much fun the people seemed to have in portraying abusive parents, rapists, drug dealers, and the like. There was at least one girl who was excited that she got a part in the rape scene. It made Beth and me wonder if, for some of these people, it wasn't simply a case of wanting to convert people or the love of theater, but rather some kind of sick fantasy brought about by repression and such.

What they were allowed to act out struck me as remarkably inconsistent. One of the creepy guys in charge of the event said that they didn't want to have people pretend to be gay and make out, because that would be too close to actually having homosexual relations. Yet acting out rape and abuse are somehow okay? Sounds like someone needs to get their priorities in order. There was also a scene in the documentary where two people were writing a script for an occult scene. In true Jack Chick fashion, they said someone got interested in the occult through Harry Potter and role-playing games (their specific example was Magic: The Gathering). So here's what I don't get. In fantasy role-playing games, people pretend to cast spells. When acting out these skits, people pretend to cast spells. What's the difference? Is it okay when the church is sponsoring it, or what? And if that's the case, why isn't it okay for a boy to pretend to make out with another boy, if that's also for a church-sponsored skit?

So, yeah, the whole thing was pretty messed up. I'd definitely recommend seeing Hell House. I wouldn't recommend Leatherface as highly, but I guess you should go ahead and watch it if you've seen the first two. I mean, I'm a completist like that, so I certainly couldn't fault other people for being the same way.

And now for a few links:

Porn Star or Popstar? (link from the Frank Black Forum)

I got 450, which I would imagine is pretty good for someone who's pretty clueless on both fronts.

An electronica song with vocals by Laura Cantrell (link from revme)



I am Tetsuo, from "Akira." Leave me
alone, dammit!


Which Random Cult Movie Character are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

You Are Apple Cider

Smooth and comforting. But downright nasty when cold.

What Part of Fall Are You?

Your Animal Personality

Your Power Animal: Eagle Animal You Were in a Past Life: Whale You are active, a challenger, and optimistic. Hard-working, you are always working towards a set goal.

The Animal Personality Test

Comments

[travspence.livejournal.com]

You're looking for logic in a fundamentalist Christian activity? Good luck with that! :-)

Space is always vaguely defined in the Peanuts world. Even in the comics you're never quite sure where things are in relation to each other. I don't think Schulz went out of his way to do that but the end result, as least to my mind, is that it makes the characters and their situations universal. Everyone can relate to it; people who grew up in Kansas as well as people from California.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

You're looking for logic in a fundamentalist Christian activity?

Well, you don't have to be logical to be consistent, but these people weren't either.

[twobitme.livejournal.com]

I saw Hell House when it was in theaters, and my memory is a little fuzzy on it, but it was a very disturbing look at how both fanatical AND ignorant they were about the world and their religion.

My favorite part, that I DO remember was when they were discussing Magic: The Gathering, it was obvious they had only heard about the game second-hand, because no one knew a thing about it, even its name.

"I think it's called Magic The Gathering?"

"Is it Magic comma The Gathering?"

"I don't think there's punctuation"

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I get the feeling they only knew about Harry Potter second-hand, too.

[skylark-king.livejournal.com]

http://www.brunching.com/pornorpony.html

I am reminded of this little test.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I took that before, but I didn't do very well on it. I tried it again today, and got 6/12. Probably someone who had My Little Pony toys as a kid (or who knows a lot about the porn industry, I suppose) would have done better.

[revme.livejournal.com]

Hooray! I'm glad you saw Hell House -- I loved that movie. It's scary and good all at the same time, but I like that the director, while having a definite point of view, wasn't all "HEY LET'S MAKE FUN OF SOME FOLKS HERE". Like, the guy whose wife left him because of an Internet Affair and he got really obsessed with this was really, really sad.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I thought the fact that there was no narrator was an interesting touch. I think the footage was chosen to give a largely negative portrayal of the people involved (especially the guy obsessed with the Internet affair, who also seemed to have a rather creepy relationship with his daughter, if I'm remembering correctly), but my own bias might be at play there. I discussed this same thing with Beth right after watching the film, and she said that people who agree with the participants' fundamentalist ideas and such might well think they came off quite well.

[revme.livejournal.com]

That was kind of the thing -- it was clear Ratliff wasn't saying "Hey, these folks are awesome", it was "I disagree with them, but they are real people and I'm going to treat them as such, because this is interesting." (not to say that there weren't funny bits -- the whole thing with the Star-of-David-As-Pentagram deal... whooo) I don't know if the people necessarily came off well, just because I fundamentally disagree with the stuff they believe, but even still, if they didn't come off well, it was because of that, rather than Ratliff going out of his way to make them look foolish.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think they came off quite poorly, but someone with a fundamentalist perspective might not agree. I think that, when making a documentary like that, it's probably best to let the people speak for themselves. Often, they'll end up digging their own graves, at least in the minds of many. I'm not saying that documentaries with a lot of commentary from the director don't work, but I think that style often works better when going for something more humorous (like, say, Penn and Teller's Bullshit!, although there have been times when I thought Penn should let the guests speak for themselves, rather than just playing brief clips and calling them assholes).

[revme.livejournal.com]

Right -- I think the "Asshole!" tactic can work when it's obvious that they ARE assholes (i.e. lying scammers), but it doesn't work if there's actually some argument around the assholery. But yeah -- it was clear that the Hell House folks weren't making things look any better for themselves, but, like you say, someone who agrees with them would probably still like the documentary because it's showing "their side", or whatever. Which is kind of cool.

Documentaries with a definite directorial voice are good too, but it tends to work better in the Essay Format (Michael Moore's work, or "Grizzly Man" by Werner Herzog) than the Jouranlistic-Posing Type (like Chris Smith, which tends to be "I am just reporting on these people, but by the way, look how waacckyy they are and how much better I am to them!!!"). "Hell House" was legitimately Journalistic, which is why it worked and why I was initially a little worried, because it IS a topic that would be really easy to slide into Journalistic-Posing.