Skip to main content

"have you read sutter cane?" or "do you know tyler durden?"

1995 was a pretty good year for horror thanks primarily to In The Mouth of MadnessLord of Illusions, and one of my all time favorites, Demon Knight.

For some reason, in my head I always confuse In The Mouth of Madness & Lord of Illusions. Don't ask me why but when thinking about them I'm always like, "which one is which?" So every once in  a while I need to watch them both to remind myself which is which.

Quick recap of each before we dig in
In The Mouth of Madness: Directed by John Carpenter (win.) and starring Sam Neill (double win.)
$.25 version of the story - Writer creates books that make people go crazy.

Lord of Illusions: Directed by Clive Barker (mega win!) and staring Scott Bakula (okay, small win.)
$.25 version of the story - Magicians do creepy things.

Honestly, you'd think I'd be able to keep those two things clear in my head! Ugh.

So, In The Mouth of Madness. While there's plenty of great elements to look at, if you keep up with my blog this won't surprise you, the thing I love most is Sam Neill. Proving for the billionth time that he's got an uncanny knack for being a creepy bastard, Sam Neill plays both a delusional psychotic and a calm, cool, collected average guy. His character is so savvy about people that he's prone to paranoia, betraying his potential to freak out at any second. Considering how his character struggles with defining and living within "reality", (not an easy task), what's most impressive about the performance is Neill's ability to slide convincingly through the scale of completely sane to completely deranged in no time flat.

But stopping here would be selling the movie short; there's so much more to it.

It's full of great social commentary on consumerism, obsession, hype, and that increasingly blurry line between fact and fiction. Throughout the movie Carpenter keeps asking us, "what's real and what makes those things real?" Is it simply a matter of believing in something? And how many people must believe in something before it's true? And if everyone believes in something except for one person, is that person insane?

There actually seems to be a bit of contradiction in the answer to these questions: Sam Neill's character seems to be the only person that believes that Sutter Cane's (Jurgen Prochnow) novels are crap despite the huge amount of hype and popularity surrounding them (read here commentary on how movies that do well at the box office aren't necessarily "good.") This tells us that one person believing something is not enough to make it true. On the other hand, Sutter Cane claims he created an entire reality simply by thinking it up and writing it down. One man believes it's true and it appears to be so. (Read here commentary on religion and politics?)

So, does one person's belief constitute reality? Comes down to a question of power. Ah, power. How we love thee. Power to convince people that your opinion is correct. Power to control others. Power to create your own reality. Power to position those who oppose you as insane. And possibly a related  question of where you get that power from.

And while Carpenter has said that the story is referential to Lovecraft (and of course, it is) - it also feels a bit like an homage (or response) to Cronenberg's Videodrome (another movie that I love and if you haven't seen it, I demand that you go watch it on Netflix right now.) Both movies deal heavily in the realm of surreality and hyperreality; conceptually fascinating stuff that I could rant about way longer than any of you care to read.

And as I can hear birds chirping outside my window (at this late/early hour of 5.50am) it's now wrap up time.

The title of this post implied a comparison between In The Mouth of Madness and Fight Club, which I didn't explicitly spell out in my rambling. If you can't connect the dots and see the similarities on your own, quit reading my blog. Retard.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Rebuttal: 17 Disturbing Horror Movies You Will Never Watch Again

When I'm not watching movies, I'm reading about movies. I stumble across all kinds of articles, blog posts, book excerpts, etc. in my quest to absorb as much movie knowledge as possible.

Now, I'm snotty and loud-mouthed and opinionated but I'd never begrudge another human their opinion. Seriously. You're absolutely welcome to have any opinion about any thing you want. However, I must warn you, if I think your opinion is stupid, I'm absolutely going to say so.

I've recently stumbled on an article completely brimming with so many idiotic opinions that I'm actually compelled to craft a response.

Here's the gist of the original article: there are some horror movies out there that are so disturbing, you'll only ever want to watch them once. I've have taken her original list and refuted her claims without pulling her entire article over. You can read the original article here.

Let's start at the beginning, with her opening statement:
"Hor…

"I live, I love, I slay & I am Content."

Let me tell you a little about myself; something real about the home I grew up in. There were lots of people around all the time. I was the only child. And, thankfully, I wasn't treated as such. Much like today, I was just the shortest member of the household.

But what's that really mean? Above and beyond it means that I had many influences growing up. For this entry, my father's influence is the most important.

My father loves arms and armor. He loves history and mythology and the art of warfare. And as any good father would, he shared these passions with me as a kid. I remember him making me wooden swords to play with. We played chess together. And I remember him reading me Greek myths and comic books before bed. He also shared his nerdy love of scifi, fantasy, and horror movies with me.

For all of this, I am grateful. And I am now passionate about the same things.

Spoiler alert: the following statement is not a dick joke. I have a love of swords. And barbarians and slay…

Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark - Another Lesson in Not Letting Homeownership Drive You Mad

There's a great history of horror films with "don't" in their titles
Don't Go In the Woods (1981)Don't Go In The House (1980)Don't Look In The Basement (1973)Don't Answer The Phone (1980)Don't Open The Door (1975)Don't Open The Window (1974)Don't Go Near The Park (1981)Etc. These titles suggest horror audiences aren't bright enough to realize the movies they are watching are warnings (premarital sex will make masked slashers target you, mess with nature and you'll end up with an uncontrollable monster, play your heavy metal records backwards and demons will come out of your lawn, etc.) But they also offer sound advise within the context of each film; not following these warnings will get you killed.

Then there's Don't Be Afraid of The Dark, where the oposite seems to be true. The title doesn't actually read as a warning, although the warning is implied there. It actually reads as a wheedling ploy by whatever creature is…