131 replies to this topic

[J.A.A. Purves]

I've also dispensed with worrying about spoilers this far in the thread.

Nicholas, on 23 April 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

Bringing in the ancients kind of threw me off a bit. There's a sense in which you could identify the targeted voyeuer with the technicians or the gods, or ...

... and/or just us, the horror movie audience. I don't think it's much more complicated than that.

Attica, on 23 April 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

At first I was thinking that you have a more negative view on horror films than I do, but then I realized that there is no real way for me to gauge this. I say this because I haven't really watched any of the Hollywood slasher films since a few in the 1980's so I've never seen any of the Saw's or Hostel's ect. As I've mentioned on these boards before, I do find value in good horror films. Films such as Excorcism of Emily Rose, 28 days later, Blair Witch, the Devils backbone. ect...ect...... But these films are a different breed then the slasher/mutilation films that the Cabin in the Woods is commenting on, and I've never been inclined to want to rent those in the first place (although I know enough about them to get the tropes that are found in CITW).

With friends who watched these films constantly, I've sat down and watched most of a few Saw and Hostel films. I felt sick and ashamed afterwards and still the memory comes back only with a sense of guilt.

Quote

One thought though, is that there will always be horror films, and there always will be people watching them for various reasons. What I think we need to see is Hollywood moving away from films that concentrate on the various horrible ways that a person can be mutilated to death, to films that concentrate on ideas and concepts related to morality, and to humanities questions about it's various problems, as well as questions and fears about it's future and the unknown ... I'd like to see Hollywood making more films like Cujo, or Pan's Labyrinth (Or last years Insidious).

That would be amazing. I'm just not sure yet what exactly it is that we need in order to cause this to happen.

Peter T Chattaway, on 23 April 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

Persiflage wrote:
: 3 - Not much discussion of how the film handles the concept of free will on this thread. It seemed to be a fairly major theme in the film.

I actually got the opposite sense, that it WASN'T really about free will. Richard Jenkins does have a line about how the characters have a moment of freedom somewhere in the middle of the process, but the beginning and the outcome are determined by he and his colleagues; and of course Jenkins and his co-workers have a betting pool etc.; but I didn't sense anything particularly deep about this.

Besides Jenkins's comment about how they have to actually trigger a monster/serial killer of their own free will and if they "don't transgress, then they won't be punished" you have (1) voices inserting themselves inside the heads of the characters "I want to read this out loud" "Read the Latin out loud" "I want to go for a walk", etc. (2) all the characters are obviously being manipulated into making choices they normally would not make (3) Marty bringing up the idea of puppeteers, and eventually yelling that he refuses to be a puppet and is the boss of his own brain, (4) Dana trying to convince Holden that Marty was right about the puppeteers and that it doesn't matter what they decide to do, something will just suddenly happen to stop them, (5) Dana explaining towards the end that "they made us choose. They made us choose how we die" which, philosophically speaking, is not a free choice at all.

Quote

I guess I would say that, if I had noticed the theme at all, I might have framed it as one of order vs. chaos, with the betting pool being just one of several ways that people try to impose a semblance of order on chaos. (There's a chart on the wall, and a system for placing bets, etc., but the actual thing being bet on is still utterly random.) And then the film basically ends on a note of "Chaos reigns" (to quote Antichrist), as the living beings who have been trapped within the system break free of it and bring about the system's destruction (a la the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, the book version of which was quite emphatic about the role of "chaos" in all this).

Hmmm. It occurs to me that one of the reasons I might be more open to an order-vs-chaos reading of the film than a free-will-vs-no-free-will reading is because free will -- or any sort of will, really -- requires some sort of character, and I never bought any of these people as actual CHARACTERS. The film's utter incoherence on the level of world-building etc., on the other hand, actually fits very well with an order-vs-chaos way of reading things.

I could see that. In fact, both themes could probably together. In a truly chaotic world, free will is either meaningless or nonexistent. The world of this film is simply a world with evil gods whose desires are apparently identical with those desires of the consumers in our real world who have created the demand for the currently popular horror film. The five main characters are essentially trapped in a bad horror film. I understand how you might not buy any of them as "characters" but I think the point was just that they were being forced into the character roles that the cliched genre/evil gods demanded. Chris Hemsworth's character, for example, (who I'll always first remember as Captain Kirk's dad) is supposed to be more intelligent with an academic scholarship, but the role the "puppetmasters" want him to play is the jock/athlete. It's the same for all four of them, they were not really supposed to be like they appear to be at the cabin.

Quote

What's the reason why? At first, you seemed to be saying that it was there just as part of a general plan to deny our expectations, but now you seem to be saying that each and every case of expectation denial has some sort of deeper reason that is unique to that expectation denial. So what IS that deeper something, in this case?

I have the impression that Goddard and Whedon decided to play with audience expectation. I think Attica explained it better than I did earlier. The movie theater audience is almost conditioned to want Holden to not say anything about the mirror, just to use it to spy on Dana. The audience in my theater was laughing at Holden's apparent excitement when Dana starts undressing. The guys, or the monsters, watching the girls take their clothes off is common in the horror genre. It's what we expect. But Holden's conscience get's the better of him and he chooses not to. By denying our expectation, we are led to question why it is that we expect it. Later when the labcoat guys are watching, hoping to see Jules undress, they are all dissapointed (with the movie theater audience) that she turns away. When they finally do get to watch her undress, one of them pleads with her to show more skin (the audience in my theater laughed again). The new security guard asks what it matters, the reply he gets is that it's essentially what the gods want.

Quote

Religion leads towards mystification, whereas science is profoundly concerned with DEmystifying things -- making them explainable as much as possible. Of course, there will always be things that we CAN'T explain, so science is inherently limited and religion is one of the ways we have of going BEYOND science; and of course, to the extent that science and religion are both ways of explaining reality, they should agree on the reality that they are explaining (which leads to interesting tensions when we try to combine, say, evolutionary theory with a notion of life before and after "the Fall"). But the problem here, with this film, is that it mashes up these genres and worldviews without really exploring any of those tensions; instead, it consistently demystifies and renders absurd these larger mysteries, turning the horror-movie tropes into silly little performances ... and turning the gods into, well, an absurdly literalistic nihilistic joke ... Question: do the GODS have free will? Is there any reason they HAVE to be sated this way, or any reason they HAVE to make the threat that they have made?

If this film is even remotely allegorical, then I'd look at the evil gods as representative of the modern horror movie fan/filmgoer, and it would then make sense that what they want would be absurd. Because what the consumers who made the Saw and Final Destination film franchises possible want is absurd. They want and pay for sad excuses for stories and characters who die miserably in what is essentially a nihilistic world. Come to think of it, I don't know how you could ever enjoy a whole load of popular horror films out there without being something of a nihilist (it'd be better than being a sadist at least). So in this film, there's no reasonable explanation for what the gods want, but what they want is contrary to both humanity and morality, so it's with science that someone can force these things upon normal human beings. They didn't have to do it this way, but using government scientists allowed for more commentary on what they were really doing.

The underground scientific/government laboratory would then be representative of filmmakers. They use their science to make their characters do stupid things and die senseless deaths. Why? In this film to appease the evil gods - whose desires do not make any sense, other than the fact that they're evil. In the real world to profit off of the demand the horror movie fans possess to pay for and see these types of films. So the "evil gods" of the film have to be sated this way (for example, Jules needs to take her clothes off before the monsters tear her into bloody shreds) (for example, all the bloodletting can't be put a quick stop to by any one heroic act of selfless sacrifice, thus Curt dies in vain) (for example, the characters need to act, not like human beings, but stupidly like the victims of the genre are supposed to act) because that is what the actual horror film audience likes, has come to expect and keeps paying money to see.

[J.A.A. Purves]

StephenM, on 23 April 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

The whole thing is pretty obviously a metaphor for the way horror movies get made today ... The point is, though, that the gods they're sacrificing to are us. The Audience. We have a both a seemingly insatiable desire for more blood and gore and trashy thrills ... So that's why the gods are so undefined ... they're our desires as an audience.

Precisely. I completely agree with you here.

Quote

We have a both a seemingly insatiable desire for more blood and gore and trashy thrills, as well as a deep need to deal with our dark fears and nightmares by bringing them into the light and looking at them from the outside in horror movies. As such, it is important to keep us satisfied ... that if we don't deal with those issues, we can go kinda crazy ... So that's why the gods are so undefined--they're our inner demons, they're our desires as an audience. When we go crazy at the end because the movie hasn't played out the way we wanted it to, it could mean two things: 1. We have finally seen the failure of the slasher genre and all it's stupid cliches, and are finally empowered as an audience to demand something newer and better for our horror fix. or 2. Without any proper distance from our horrors through the movies of the world, our inner demons are unleashed and we go crazy and pretty much destroy the world because we have nothing to vicariously get rid of these ugly impulses on.

I don't follow you here though. We have a deep need to deal with our dark fears? We use horror movies to satisfy our inner demons? We have a horror fix or we need to get rid of our ugly impulses through vicarious means? I doubt the majority of the horror films that The Cabin in the Woods is criticizing have any cleansing affect on the audience. I doubt that the blood, torture and slaughter deals with anyone's dark desires or helps them deal with anything at all - on the contrary, I think it makes the audience worse. Speaking personally, I was in the military when I saw the majority of horror films that I saw, and it was not healthy to watch them in any way at all. My buddies and I were worse off after seeing them than we were before.

[StephenM]

Persiflage, on 24 April 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

I don't follow you here though. We have a deep need to deal with our dark fears? We use horror movies to satisfy our inner demons? We have a horror fix or we need to get rid of our ugly impulses through vicarious means? I doubt the majority of the horror films that The Cabin in the Woods is criticizing have any cleansing affect on the audience. I doubt that the blood, torture and slaughter deals with anyone's dark desires or helps them deal with anything at all - on the contrary, I think it makes the audience worse. Speaking personally, I was in the military when I saw the majority of horror films that I saw, and it was not healthy to watch them in any way at all. My buddies and I were worse off after seeing them than we were before.

Fair enough. I don't think slasher movies or things like Hostel are positive, either. What I was trying to say is that the genre of Horror as a whole--whether cinematic or literary or something else--allows us to deal with our darkest urges by experiencing them vicariously through art. "Dealing with" is a little vague and undefined, and I guess it could mean we get it out of our system, or decide it's not as scary as we thought it was, or acknowledge that evil does truly exist instead of hiding it away, or a number of other things, depending on the person and the work of horror. Books like "Frankenstein" or "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" and most of the films on the A&F Top 25 Horror Films are great because they are able to analyze these deep fears within a moral and spiritual dimension. The fact that the film presents the labs and playing out of the rituals as a worldwide phenomenon, and connects them back in history with throwing virgins into volcanoes and the sacrifices of the Aztecs seems to me to be attempting to say that these dark desires are inherent in us as a species. What "the director" says at the end about the end of the world suggests we need these sacrifices to avoid going completely crazy, that if we don't deal with these demons through art, we become completely self-destructive.

But thinking about it now, the weight of evidence in the film does seem to be against sacrifices like these altogether. It's presenting slasher movies as things that kill actual people, just as human sacrifices of the Aztecs 500 years ago, and that's not really "dealing with something through art," but an ugly, sadistic impulse that we'd be better off without. So the movie may not really be supporting Horror as a genre at all, or at least it's much more obviously critical of it than it is positive about the long-range possibilities. The horror movies lampooned here are clearly trash, it's just a question (to me at least) whether the film itself is calling for better horror movies that are more morally complex, or just calling for an end to Horror altogether since it taps into our ugliest, most violent, sinful sides.

[Attica]

StephenM said:


:What I was trying to say is that the genre of Horror as a whole--whether cinematic or literary or something else--allows us to deal with our darkest urges by experiencing them vicariously through art. "Dealing with" is a little vague and undefined, and I guess it could mean we get it out of our system, or decide it's not as scary as we thought it was, or acknowledge that evil does truly exist instead of hiding it away, or a number of other things, depending on the person and the work of horror. Books like "Frankenstein" or "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" and most of the films on the A&F Top 25 Horror Films are great because they are able to analyze these deep fears within a moral and spiritual dimension. The fact that the film presents the labs and playing out of the rituals as a worldwide phenomenon, and connects them back in history with throwing virgins into volcanoes and the sacrifices of the Aztecs seems to me to be attempting to say that these dark desires are inherent in us as a species. What "the director" says at the end about the end of the world suggests we need these sacrifices to avoid going completely crazy, that if we don't deal with these demons through art, we become completely self-destructive.

But thinking about it now, the weight of evidence in the film does seem to be against sacrifices like these altogether. It's presenting slasher movies as things that kill actual people, just as human sacrifices of the Aztecs 500 years ago, and that's not really "dealing with something through art," but an ugly, sadistic impulse that we'd be better off without. So the movie may not really be supporting Horror as a genre at all, or at least it's much more obviously critical of it than it is positive about the long-range possibilities. The horror movies lampooned here are clearly trash, it's just a question (to me at least) whether the film itself is calling for better horror movies that are more morally complex, or just calling for an end to Horror altogether since it taps into our ugliest, most violent, sinful sides.







I'm under the opinion that horror (when done right) is profoundly moral and touches on what's good in us. We wouldn't be disturbed by horror films if it didn't. It's because of the good in us that we find the darkness in horror films disturbing and have that chill run up our back. If they just touched on the darkness in us we would be completely numb or uncarring to what is going on. When were revolted by something horrible in a horror film it's because whats moral in us cries out "that's wrong". Of course bad horror films can probably twist this.

A good horror film doesn't just help us cope with our fears and such (although there is an element of that) it tells us that we live in a world where evil exists, our choices matter, there is spiritual things beyond our understanding, ect. It tells us that evil behaviour is painful, degrading, and has bad consequences. It leads us to care for the monsters around us (Frankenstein), or leads us to be wary of the evil doers. It tells us that love will have us fight for those we love even at a potentially terrible cost (Cujo and a multitude of other horror films.) It says that we can rise up against and conquer incredible challenges and encourages us to. Often good horror films say that we might live in a world where there is darkness, but there is a light there as well.... in our good choices, in our heroic attempts to fight against the darkness, in our singular purpose and bravery. There might be a lot of death in most horror story.... but the story is really about people who want to live against all odds.

Also Horror films have a cosmic dimension just as the monsters depicted in the Bible. They're not just monsters, but are saying something more than what they are depicted as. For instance when the Bible talks about God grabbing a terrible monster and smashing it against the rocks it's not just talking about God bringing down some evil so and so King.... it's talking about God destroying cosmic evil that is connected with these peoples evil acts. God destroys the cosmic evil and brings light into the darness. A good horror film isn't about the darkness.... but about the light shining in the darkness that will never go out.


Likewise in a horror film when the good guy banishes the monster with the cross, or kills the mummy it can relate to us on a cosmic level. It says that we have the responsibility to stand against what's wrong and make it right.

A good horror story isn't about celebrating evil and death...... it's about overcoming evil, and life.


When done right it's very much in the tradition of the folk tale.... where we are encouraged to flee from evil, be suitably cautious of such things, and live morally undestructive lives in a world that has "dimensions" to it that are beyond our understanding..... thus opening us up to a comprehension of the spiritual world in which we really live, where our choices matter in a cosmic way.


If that makes any sense.

So when done right a horror film doesn't tap into our Hyde side, but taps into our Jeckyl, showing us the darkness of whatever potential Hyde is in us, and telling us to reject it.

Edited by Attica, 26 April 2012 - 11:28 PM.

[Attica]

Persiflage said:

:With friends who watched these films constantly, I've sat down and watched most of a few Saw and Hostel films. I felt sick and ashamed afterwards and still the memory comes back only with a sense of guilt.


Yeah. That's one of the reasons I avoid that strain of horror. I've never even seen the Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Halloween. Although I've heard that Halloween is quite good.




:That would be amazing. I'm just not sure yet what exactly it is that we need in order to cause this to happen.


I've been pondering this off an on all day. I'd think that stuff like the Arts and Faith top 25 Horror films is a step in the right direction. People need to be educated to understanding that satisfaction from film (including horror) comes not just from a response during the film but the affects films have on us after we leave the theatre, whether it's in the later discussions, or the insights the film has given us to ponder. Or the affect the film has on our hearts leading to our society.

What one can largely see is probably two main camps when it comes to horror films. One camp (being the main camp that Christians are in) is the one that hears the word "horror" and has a knee jerk reaction largely writing it off as being anything from a waste to completely destructive. The other camp is of course the group that Cabin in the Woods is riffing on, being the folks who go to horror films for the visceral thrills that they get from what's presented on the screen.

But then of course there is a smaller third camp. Which is probably where most Arts and Faithers would lie, hence this conversation. This is the camp that doesn't outright reject all horror films, but wades in with caution, attempting to discern what the film is saying and it's place and influence on themselves and society. This group gets satisfaction not mainly from the visceral thrills of the film as much as from the quality and impact of the story. Not that a few creeps and jumps are a bad thing.

So being that Hollywood is making the slasher films in question because they are making good returns, then the obvious answer would be to get people to watch and support the good stuff when it comes into the theatres. Which would be achieved by pulling those people from the first to camps into the third camp. We can do this by educating the group in the first camp about the value of good horror films, being that they are not ALL "evil" and bad for us, but can be good for our intellectual, emotional, and spiritual lives....... and also educating the second camp into discerning when a film isn't good for them or society, and leading them to support the good stuff.

Of course then it comes down to the matter of people's views on what's good and bad. But the big problem in the situation isn't that people's viewpoints on this don't always line up..... but that most people don't really think about what's good or bad about the horror film in the first place. They either accept or reject the horror film without really thinking it through.

So at this juncture I'm thinking the answer is to simply get more people thinking seriously about, and discussing, these films.... and then maybe they'll start supporting more worthwhile films. Of course we can start by all rushing out to see our very own Scott Derrickson's new film when it hits the theatres.

But even this weekend "the Raven" is coming out, and it looks like it might be an interesting film from this perspective. Edit: Then again from what reviews are now saying, maybe not.

Edited by Attica, 27 April 2012 - 11:29 AM.

[Gina]

If anyone would like to do a piece about this film for BreakPoint.org, let me know. Being the world's biggest chicken, I obviously can't see and review it myself! But based on all your descriptions here, it sounds as if there are some points about it worth exploring.

[J.A.A. Purves]

So, Gina was kind enough to allow me to write a separate piece for her about the theological themes in Whedon and Goddard's work. Thanks, Gina.

[Tyler]

Persiflage, on 10 May 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

So, Gina was kind enough to allow me to write a separate piece for her about the theological themes in Whedon and Goddard's work. Thanks, Gina.

Good essay. Some of the episodes of Lost that Goddard wrote--"Outlaws," "Flashes Before Your Eyes," "The Man Behind the Curtain," and "The Shape of Things to Come," especially--touch on similar kinds of themes. And I'm sure his script for Robopocalypse will be deeply thoughtful and philosophical, too.

The first time I glanced at the title, though, I read it as "Whedon and Godard's work," which would have been a rather different subject.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Tyler wrote:
: The first time I glanced at the title, though, I read it as "Whedon and Godard's work," which would have been a rather different subject.

Heh. Same here.

[Gina]

Persiflage, on 10 May 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

So, Gina was kind enough to allow me to write a separate piece for her about the theological themes in Whedon and Goddard's work. Thanks, Gina.

Thank YOU! You did great!

[Evan Day]

I went and saw this movie over the weekend. I can't recall ever going to a horror (or horror parody movie) in the theaters, so it's a little weird from that perspective.

I will say it had me thinking about the movie and it's implications a lot, in a good way. I really only have two things to observe (i'm leaving spoilers unmarked).

The ending could either be interpreted as a "We need things like horror films as a release to keep the monsters in our heads down below," message, or a "The realm of bad horror films isn't worth saving." I'm pretty certain Whedon intended the latter.

It also strikes me that within the film's own universe, the ending is nihlistic, the world isn't worth saving, so have some pot while we let the abominations below rise. But on a meta level, you could almost see it as a positive call to tear down the old ways of doing horror. It's not really a "downer ending," as much a "downer ending joke." I suppose it's the difference between the endings to say, Night of the Living Dead and Dr Strangelove. One's a dark, soul crushing ending, the other is an elaborate black joke.

EDIT: Oh, and for some bizarre reason I thought the surprise cameo was Jamie Lee Curtis at first. Which actually might have been the greatest thing ever

Edited by Evan Day, 14 May 2012 - 02:07 AM.

[Anders]

Peter T Chattaway, on 23 April 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

: In this film, both the scientists and the "giant evil gods" seem to be violating free will.

Question: do the GODS have free will? Is there any reason they HAVE to be sated this way, or any reason they HAVE to make the threat that they have made?

I watched CABIN THE WOODS last night, and while I'm not totally convinced of it's absolute brilliance, I got a pretty good kick out of it.

I think that these questions point to a deeper theological significance than just being about horror films. I think the film is very critical of a certain kind of Christian notion of sacrifice, both on the part of Marty (he refuses to sacrifice himself to save the world) and the fact that the "gods" demand sacrifice. I guess I agree with Ryan H. that it's essentially a big nihilistic gag and I don't think it reflects very well on horror fans (of this genre at least, as my friend said as we were watching "the title is the genre") as within the world of the film, the control operators are essentially making a snuff film.