![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
glitter_n_goreAnd we're back!! It's time for another Women In Horror Month. The official channel is here, and you should definitely keep an eye on their Twitter feed as well. Other people you should follow because they're just plain awesome: The Graveyard Shift Sisters and The Horror Honeys, my new very favorite blogs, and they are truly the best resources for all things horror on the 'net. Great, great stuff.
So! Recap of this project I've been doing: This is a box office retrospective. I'm talking about which horror movies starring female leads were the most successful over the past ten years, with "successful" defined as anything that grossed $25 million or higher domestically. I was originally going with $30 million as my arbitrary cut-off point, but I think that changed halfway through the retrospective last time, so I'll just stick with this until we're done. If I haven't seen the movie and/or can't tell from the trailers and marketing whether it actually has a female lead, the title is in (parentheses). Last year, I covered years 2005 through 2010. Follow this tag to catch up on those posts if you want.
Let's do this!
2011:
Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 1 - $276.9 million
Paranormal Activity 3 - $104 million
(Contagion - $75.6 million)
(Scream 4 - $38.1 million)
Red Riding Hood - $37.7 million
(The Roommate - $37.3 million)
Honorable mention: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark - $24 million
About split down the middle this year in terms of remakes/sequels versus original stories--not bad, all things considered. As I mentioned last time, the horror franchise machine that doesn't include Saw has been dominated by four particular franchises, all starring women: Resident Evil, Twilight, Underworld and Paranormal Activity. There is something from at least one of them almost every single year. This time, I'm gonna look at the original stories in the mix.
Contagion:
This is one of those movies I keep thinking about seeing, but then I see a short clip of it on TV, I get kinda bored, and I think, "Eh, I'm sure it's more interesting/makes more sense in context. I should watch the whole thing some time." And then I never actually sit down and watch it. I have a thing about untreatable, fast-spreading disease and wounds that won't heal. Anything you can't outrun or fight off with a machete just gives me the all-overs. I guess because this sort of scenario seems like something that could actually happen? So it should be the kind of movie I would be reasonably creeped out by and possibly enjoy. Plus a lot of my favorite people are in it. I guess the big thing holding me back is I feel like I've seen this movie before, and I liked it better when it was called Outbreak. So why would I go for this one if I could just watch that, or Brandon Cronenburg's Antiviral instead? Your mileage may vary. I cannot muster more than a "Meh" whenever I think about this movie. Anyone who's seen it want to weigh in?
Red Riding Hood:
Ugh, this movie. I saw it in theaters. Most disappointing theater experience of my life. And that's only partly because of the jerk who wouldn't turn off his damn PHONE. You're going to the Special Hell, sir. The thing is, there are parts of this movie that I actually liked. Gary Oldman is delightfully sadistic, the costumes and scenery are gorgeous, the mystery setup is actually okay. But the writing. Oh lordy, the writing. This wants so badly to be some kind of medieval Opposite Twilight, only sexier, and it . . . shows. And I'm sorry about that, because I have a ton of respect for so many of these people, Amanda Seyfried included. There's an intensity in the way she carries herself that should make her a great choice as a tough female protagonist with a dark secret, but they never really gave her anything to work with. The fact that this is directed by Twilight's Catherine Hardwick just makes me even more sorry for it. We need more spooky stories with women directors, performers, and creators. But we also need a whole lot less crap like this.
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark:
I have been a huge fan of Guillermo Del Toro for years, and I will most definitely be gushing about him again before this retrospective is over. Speaking of which, I'll be Live Tweeting Crimson Peak on V-day this year--you should come! Now, he's one of two co-writers on this movie, adapted from a teleplay by Nigel McKeand for the 1973 made-for-TV movie which I haven't seen. The actual director for this one was Troy Nixey, rather than Del Toro, but his fingerprints are all over it. If you haven't seen it, the story follows a young couple with a little girl who move into a creepy old house with a monster infestation. I had a hard time figuring out who the audience for this was supposed to be, because it's atmospheric and creepy without being bone-chilling-scary; there's a childlike sense of magic to the mythology and the main point of view (the child's, played by Bailee Madison) that makes it seem like a dark fairy tale, but definitely not intended for younger viewers. Not that this is a criticism, but I find it . . . interesting. I loved this movie.
Now, just like last time, I do have a question for you guys: One of the frustrating aspects of putting this retrospective together looking at box office success as my main barometer, is that I can only talk about the movies that actually made the cut in that particular year. So every year I have to leave out cool stuff I'd rather talk about, in this instance Detention, and Twixt (which I still need to review properly--I'll get to it one day), and Jack Ketchum's The Woman. I remember that last one especially generating a lot of buzz when it came out, at least within the horror community, and I actually had the opportunity to meet Ketchum at the Blood At The Beach festival that year. (I stopped flailing juuuuust long enough to ask him whether the idea for the movie or the book came first, and he told me they actually put them together pretty much at the same time. That's all the coherent thought I could muster, but I AM PROUD OF IT.)
So here's my question: Why are so many movies that seem important to the horror community so often overlooked by the mainstream? Are there simply not enough of us to take these movies to the bank? Have we become so skeptical about whether a given movie will live up to our expectations that we're more likely to wait for the DVD instead of shelling out whatever tickets are costing these days? My theory is this: horror--truly great horror, the stuff we love and thrive on, that stands the test of time and makes the genre seem worthwhile and exciting again--makes people uncomfortable. It's challenging, it's creepy, it's nasty, it's mean, and it makes you face your fears in a way that other types of films just don't. And maybe we horror hounds are just calibrated to appreciate a film that does that to us, at least more so than the general public.
Thoughts? Questions? Comments? The comment box is open! Happy February, and I'll see you for 2012 shortly!
So! Recap of this project I've been doing: This is a box office retrospective. I'm talking about which horror movies starring female leads were the most successful over the past ten years, with "successful" defined as anything that grossed $25 million or higher domestically. I was originally going with $30 million as my arbitrary cut-off point, but I think that changed halfway through the retrospective last time, so I'll just stick with this until we're done. If I haven't seen the movie and/or can't tell from the trailers and marketing whether it actually has a female lead, the title is in (parentheses). Last year, I covered years 2005 through 2010. Follow this tag to catch up on those posts if you want.
Let's do this!
2011:
Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 1 - $276.9 million
Paranormal Activity 3 - $104 million
(Contagion - $75.6 million)
(Scream 4 - $38.1 million)
Red Riding Hood - $37.7 million
(The Roommate - $37.3 million)
Honorable mention: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark - $24 million
About split down the middle this year in terms of remakes/sequels versus original stories--not bad, all things considered. As I mentioned last time, the horror franchise machine that doesn't include Saw has been dominated by four particular franchises, all starring women: Resident Evil, Twilight, Underworld and Paranormal Activity. There is something from at least one of them almost every single year. This time, I'm gonna look at the original stories in the mix.
Contagion:
This is one of those movies I keep thinking about seeing, but then I see a short clip of it on TV, I get kinda bored, and I think, "Eh, I'm sure it's more interesting/makes more sense in context. I should watch the whole thing some time." And then I never actually sit down and watch it. I have a thing about untreatable, fast-spreading disease and wounds that won't heal. Anything you can't outrun or fight off with a machete just gives me the all-overs. I guess because this sort of scenario seems like something that could actually happen? So it should be the kind of movie I would be reasonably creeped out by and possibly enjoy. Plus a lot of my favorite people are in it. I guess the big thing holding me back is I feel like I've seen this movie before, and I liked it better when it was called Outbreak. So why would I go for this one if I could just watch that, or Brandon Cronenburg's Antiviral instead? Your mileage may vary. I cannot muster more than a "Meh" whenever I think about this movie. Anyone who's seen it want to weigh in?
Red Riding Hood:
Ugh, this movie. I saw it in theaters. Most disappointing theater experience of my life. And that's only partly because of the jerk who wouldn't turn off his damn PHONE. You're going to the Special Hell, sir. The thing is, there are parts of this movie that I actually liked. Gary Oldman is delightfully sadistic, the costumes and scenery are gorgeous, the mystery setup is actually okay. But the writing. Oh lordy, the writing. This wants so badly to be some kind of medieval Opposite Twilight, only sexier, and it . . . shows. And I'm sorry about that, because I have a ton of respect for so many of these people, Amanda Seyfried included. There's an intensity in the way she carries herself that should make her a great choice as a tough female protagonist with a dark secret, but they never really gave her anything to work with. The fact that this is directed by Twilight's Catherine Hardwick just makes me even more sorry for it. We need more spooky stories with women directors, performers, and creators. But we also need a whole lot less crap like this.
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark:
I have been a huge fan of Guillermo Del Toro for years, and I will most definitely be gushing about him again before this retrospective is over. Speaking of which, I'll be Live Tweeting Crimson Peak on V-day this year--you should come! Now, he's one of two co-writers on this movie, adapted from a teleplay by Nigel McKeand for the 1973 made-for-TV movie which I haven't seen. The actual director for this one was Troy Nixey, rather than Del Toro, but his fingerprints are all over it. If you haven't seen it, the story follows a young couple with a little girl who move into a creepy old house with a monster infestation. I had a hard time figuring out who the audience for this was supposed to be, because it's atmospheric and creepy without being bone-chilling-scary; there's a childlike sense of magic to the mythology and the main point of view (the child's, played by Bailee Madison) that makes it seem like a dark fairy tale, but definitely not intended for younger viewers. Not that this is a criticism, but I find it . . . interesting. I loved this movie.
Now, just like last time, I do have a question for you guys: One of the frustrating aspects of putting this retrospective together looking at box office success as my main barometer, is that I can only talk about the movies that actually made the cut in that particular year. So every year I have to leave out cool stuff I'd rather talk about, in this instance Detention, and Twixt (which I still need to review properly--I'll get to it one day), and Jack Ketchum's The Woman. I remember that last one especially generating a lot of buzz when it came out, at least within the horror community, and I actually had the opportunity to meet Ketchum at the Blood At The Beach festival that year. (I stopped flailing juuuuust long enough to ask him whether the idea for the movie or the book came first, and he told me they actually put them together pretty much at the same time. That's all the coherent thought I could muster, but I AM PROUD OF IT.)
So here's my question: Why are so many movies that seem important to the horror community so often overlooked by the mainstream? Are there simply not enough of us to take these movies to the bank? Have we become so skeptical about whether a given movie will live up to our expectations that we're more likely to wait for the DVD instead of shelling out whatever tickets are costing these days? My theory is this: horror--truly great horror, the stuff we love and thrive on, that stands the test of time and makes the genre seem worthwhile and exciting again--makes people uncomfortable. It's challenging, it's creepy, it's nasty, it's mean, and it makes you face your fears in a way that other types of films just don't. And maybe we horror hounds are just calibrated to appreciate a film that does that to us, at least more so than the general public.
Thoughts? Questions? Comments? The comment box is open! Happy February, and I'll see you for 2012 shortly!