29 August 2014

SUMMER OF BLOOD: THE 21st CENTURY SLASHER

In my head, Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon is a beloved consensus highlight of 2000s meta-horror that is well understood to be an essential work for genre fans. And maybe that's how it works in the real world, since every review I read about it seems to contain the sentiment "this is such a great film, even though nobody has ever heard of it or seen it", and all those dozens and dozens of reviewers can't have stumbled upon the same microscopic, obscure gem just like that. On the other hand, if the film's cult had any sort of heft to it at all, than producer/director/co-writer Scott Glosserman and co-writer David J. Stieve would have more (any) impressive horror films to their name since Behind the Mask hit the festival circuit in 2006, and leading man Nathan Baesel would have more credits for acting than for working in post-production on reality television shows. The universe is just a cruel prick sometimes, and so, while the dipshits behind stuff like V/H/S have an entire self-reinforcing cottage industry going on for themselves, Glosserman and Stieve, nearly a decade on, have just this one terrific little pearl of a satiric horror-comedy to their name.

But at least they have that. At least we have that. Behind the Mask isn't perfect - it has a doozy of a formal complication baked right into the concept that might not ever have been resolvable in a truly elegant way - but you sit around waiting for a perfect horror film, you starve to death. And there's plenty of outright great material generously littered throughout the film, especially in its absolutely glorious first third, when it becomes the best extant version of the self-examining meta-horror film that had become so popular in the decade following Scream. The film takes place in a universe where Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers, and Freddie Krueger have actually existed to do their killing in the small towns of Crystal Lake, Haddonfield, and Springwood, information communicated to us in a breathless TV news report that turns out to be the opening scene of a documentary being pieced together by Taylor Gentry (Angela Goethals), one-third of a team of graduate student documentary filmmakers (the others are Doug and Todd, played by Ben Pace and Britain Spellings in their limited onscreen appearances; I believe they are, respectively, the cinematographer and sound recordist). Their film is an investigation into the how of all these weirdly elaborate psycho killers who breed like rabbits in this universe, and to answer that question, Taylor has decided to go right to the source: Leslie Vernon (Baesel), who is building himself into the role of mysterious, possibly undead slasher monster for the little town of Glen Echo, Maryland.

The film shifts imperceptibly through two different phases in its first hour: the first part is an extravagantly funny and intelligent "behind the scenes" look into how all the contrivances and straight-up bullshit that go into making slasher movie plots actually involve a shitload of hard work and careful planning on the part of the psychos in question. Vernon is a proud nerd at heart, eager to show off his work, his research, bragging about how he's been carefully stalking his chosen Final Girl, Kelly (Kate Lang Johnson) - he prefers the term "Survivor Girl", which strikes me as the filmmakers being a little contrary just for the sake of it - making her paranoid without actually making her feel unsafe, planting clues about Glen Echo's mysterious (and partially fabricated) tragic history where he knows she'll find it, on top of doing things like working his ass off at cardio to make sure that he can run fast enough to do that "killer who only walks slowly is always just a few paces away" routine.

It's a film for and by people who understand the rules of the slasher movie very well, have some affection for the form, but also recognise that it's basically terrible. And having opened by complimenting those of us in that niche audience for our intelligence and sophistication, the film starts to get really interesting in its middle, and best third, when it ceases to be just one more post-Scream parody of slasher film tropes. Though, to be absolutely clear and absolutely fair, it is far more cutting and inventive in that vein than just about any film I've ever seen, certainly more than the Screams. Glosserman and Stieve have the knack for answering questions that we'd never think to ask, but once we see oh, that's how a psycho slasher killer would do THAT, it's clear and logical and easy to map onto the Jasons and Michaels and their numerous, less iconic brethren. Parts of Behind the Mask are just plain delightful in the way that a caper movie is delightful, as we see puzzle pieces coming into play in ways that are unpredictable and surprising and always, always rewarding.

That, anyway, is the superficial reason for loving the film. The deeper, frankly discomfiting reason, especially if you're a big slasher fan (and the movie relies on you being so, both to make its most impact and simply so that you get all the jokes), is that Behind the Mask rather craftily and invisibly turns itself around on the viewer through the form of its internal filmmakers, asking without voicing the words, "so anyway, why do you watch this shit?" There comes a point when Taylor... not exactly realises that she's filming the preparations of a terrifically friendly, funny geek who is, that night, going to murder at least seven teenagers, but more realises that she already realised it a little while ago. And then the film becomes explicitly about the ethics of filming a criminal act that the documentarian has the means to stop, but implicitly, and far more rewardingly, about the ethics of entertainment based in violent, elaborate death - something that, incidentally, Behind the Mask almost completely lacks. Only one of its fourteen actual or "what if?" deaths can be legitimately described as gory, and that's largely because it's paying off a silly one-off line about post-hole diggers from much earlier in the film.

I've seen the film three times now, and I'm still distinctly aware that I haven't unpacked everything going in on that middle chunk, as it implicates the viewer, and confounds its own status as a work of art. Vernon explains to an increasingly incredulous Taylor why all of the baroque elements of his work are necessary, how his entire focus is on empowering the Survivor Girl while also depriving her of her femininity, in terms that reek of medically outdated psychoanalytic lit theory, providing an intellectual spine for "doing slashers" that's plausible viewed from one angle, puffed-up double-talk from another; the film manages to discuss in easy, bite-sized form some of the weightier pro-horror arguments that have been offered and give them quite a bit of validation, and at the same time to make those arguments seem forced. "But aren't you really just excited to watch people die?" the film asks. "And don't you wonder if that kind of makes you a bad person?" There's even a gratuitous boob shot that's called out as gratuitous and then allowed to linger in a way that feels more self-aware and self-critical about male gazes than any other gratuitous boob shoot I've seen in a slasher movie.

The other important thing going on is that Behind the Mask really asserts itself not as a movie about the life of a slasher killer, but a movie about making a movie about a slasher killer. Between its 2006 premiere and its insultingly tiny 2007 theatrical release, the film came out too early to be consciously commenting on the "found footage" trend that exploded just a year later, though it's not really aping found footage to start with. Rather, when we see things through the camera's perspective, as we do for the great majority of the first hour, we're being put in the perspective of spectators of that footage - which is a dumb tautology, of course. Any time you watch a movie, you're a spectator of footage. But in Behind the Mask, there's not just documentary footage: the first scene, and a couple of moments dotted across the first hour, take place "outside" the documentary footage. And this makes the film different from virtually all found footage movies, where the entirety of the film takes place "within" the footage. The action of Behind the Mask takes place in a reality, and the film crew stands within that reality, filming it; when we then watch their footage, we're subtly being situated within that reality as well, since we know that the footage is a thing to be watched inside the film's universe, and we're watching the footage, and so it goes. And this makes us complicit with the film to a degree that we virtually never get to be with movies: not that we are present with the action and thus able to prevent, because that's just stupid. But because we become conspicuously aware that the footage has been made in order for us to watch it.

It's heady stuff, but it's also the direct cause of the film's greatest failure, and one that is completely inevitable. The peculiar effect of watching the footage as being separate from watching the movie only works because the film divides itself between "reality" and "filmed-reality"; but that exact same division cheapens the film. Every single time the movie shifts out of the camera's perspective into a more normal "horror movie" aesthetic (it's completely open about this, the lighting and video quality both dramatically change, and there's suddenly a musical score) it's jarring and feels somewhat arbitrary. To me, anyway. And then we come to the last third, when Taylor, finally thrown into moral awakening, aware that abstracting this killer's actions through the lens of cinema has been a tool to remove herself from the ramifications of filming and watching those actions, announces that the documentary is over - and just like that, the documentary is over. The rest of the film plays out in the top-level reality of polished lighting, classical visual vocabulary, and ominous music. It moves through the third act of every single slasher on the books, and let me be frank, it moves through that act beautifully. As a conventional slasher film, the last third of Behind the Mask is really one of the best out there. But it's also a conventional slasher film.

I truly don't think there was a way to "solve" that, so I'm not harping on the filmmakers for not doing it. The end of Behind the Mask is a logical and inevitable extension of everything that was set up before: countless little Chekov guns fire off, and there's one piece of foreshadowing that pays off because it specifically wasn't mentioned, which is a really awesome way of teasing the viewer's genre savviness (I don't want to give away things, so I'm putting it in spoiler bars, in all his chatter about gender metaphors, Leslie conveniently fails to mention to Taylor that the increasingly masculine Final Girl tends to have an androgynous name, something Kelly lacks). But after the complexity, the wit, and the astonishing versatility of Baesel's performance, veering from giddy enthusiast to unexpected sorrow and introspection to dead-eyed menace, even a very good conventional slasher ending feels like it's letting all the air out of a movie that has been, till that point, one of the boldest examinations I know of what viewers demand of the narrative, of the characters, and of themselves as they watch horror movies. It has a fine ending, but nonetheless a disappointing one.

But then it goes ahead and resolves its plot during the end credits: not a little bonus, but an actual scene without which the narrative of the whole is, though satisfying, literally incomplete. And so, having once again bent the reality of "what is the 'actual' movie and what isn't?" one last time - and with a Talking Heads song, on top of it! - the film gets itself back in my good graces for its final bow.

Anyway, it's funny, it's legitimately tense, and it's smart as all hell, and it's one of my favorite American horror movies of the 21st Century. Not a lot of competition for that title, we all understand, but a damned impressive film anyway, and badly in need of a bigger fanbase and more love until that glorious day when it finally asserts its birthright as a modern horror classic.

Body Count: 10, three of whom are also seen in a theoretical "what if they died this way?" flashforward. Also one person who dies in the same theoretical flashforward, but not in "reality".

19 comments:

  1. Wow, I'm watching this first chance i get. With any luck, your review wilincrease the fanbase by leaps and bounds as inexperienced horror fans like me discover that it even exists.

    It sounds like theperfect combination of horror movie and nerd humour I loved so much about Cabin in the Woods.

    ReplyDelete
  2. First of all, I know I've posted this on here a few times the last few years while asking you to review this film (FUCKING FINALLY), but this is the best horror film of the 21st century, one of the five best slashers* ever made, and the movie that the absolute biggest fans of Scream always insist that movie was.

    Second, although it's fine on my desktop, your spoiler bars aren't covering anything on the mobile version, at least for me. Which, granted, didn't hurt me any, but it might someone, and I would hate for that to happen...

    Third, my own story of how I stumbled across this film: I was at a store, browsing new dvds, as a film geek in the mid-late 00's is wont to do. I saw a dvd for a movie called Hatchet: Old School American Horror (btw, the Hatchet trilogy should really be on deck for next year) and bought it, sight unseen, because I am an inexplicably huge fan of slasher films.

    I got home, popped the disc in, and it had those generally horrible force play trailers. One of them was for Behind the Mask and my immediate response was "HOLY SHIT I HAVE TO SEE THAT MOVIE." As much as I enjoyed Hatchet, the trailer was what stuck with me, and a few weeks later, I found a copy at Best Buy, I think. And bought it, based solely on the trailer (which, to be fair, was a leg up on Hatchet, which I bought based solely on the dvd case...) So, yeah, I don't know how widespread the consensus on the film is, but I have pushed this movie on basically everyone I know that likes horror (Bryan Nimmo, who posts on a message board that I also am on, can attest to this) and the failure of the kickstarter for Before the Mask: The Return of Leslie Vernon left me crushed. (That film, btw, was intended to be a "sprequel" combining a sequel, a remake of the first film, and a prequel all in one package.)

    *My top six slasher list

    1. Halloween - Duh

    2. Wes Craven's New Nightmare

    3. The Burning

    4. Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon

    5. A Nightmare on Elm Street

    6. Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian Malbon - It does have some similarities to Cabin in the Woods, but, and I say this as someone who quite routinely refers to Joss Whedon as God... Behind the Mask is way fucking better, deeper, and smarter. Hell, the parts that are a comedy are also significantly funnier, although BtM divides between comedy and horror much more than blending them the way Cabin does.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you so much for alerting me to this film! Always lovely to discover a hidden gem. I think I was first made aware of this movie's existence when I saw it in a DVD store in amongst a whole bunch of post-2000 dross, and filed it away in my head as just another , violent, cheapo slasher (this was back in the day when I was afraid of Nicolas Winding Refn and Korean cinema as well-how time change.)
    Thanks to you, this is definitely going on my must see list (although I don't think it will beat my favourite of the meta-horror films, the granddaddy of them all, Targets).
    Thanks again for your review!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was surprised not to see a single link to Man Bites Dog; is the similarity more superficial than it looks?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "in all his chatter about gender metaphors, Leslie conveniently fails to mention to Taylor that the increasingly masculine Final Girl tends to have an androgynous name, something Kelly lacks)"

    Not according to the Sexy Stud she doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just finished watching it literally not five minutes ago because I read this review. Enjoyed it very much, but got the distinct feeling there was a lot I was missing. I wish I'd gone with my first instinct and brushed up on my slasher tropes before watching. Any chance you could clue us in to some of the subtler, more esoteric in jokes that might have sailed over the heads--or under the radar--of us dilettantes?

    Also, what do you make of the fact that Leslie himself has an androgynous name?

    ReplyDelete
  8. There's not much that I'd actually call "esoteric", beyond the casting of Zelda Rubinstein. I think it plays more on the cumulative effect of seeing the same basic scenario play out so many times that it becomes white noise, and by showing those tropes in reverse, as it were, it freshens them and "weirds" them.

    Like the cardio scene. Killers that can magically teleport everywhere are so common that it barely registers, even as lazy writing But when it's explained as a deliberate psycho killer strategy that tales a lot of work and training to execute properly, it's funny mostly because it's so unexpectedly incongruous. But also absolutely true. It's more about being shaken out of a comfort zone more than being rewarded for having specific knowledge.

    That being said, Leslie is very much a parody of Michael Myers specifically, and there's a lot of Halloweens 4, 5, and Resurrection especially in the movie's scenario (and the bit where he fakes his family relationship to Kelly strikes me as the filmmakers deliberately mocking the stupid "Laurie is Michael's sister" development from Halloween II). Which also, I am sure, makes it more rewarding to people who have seen that franchise all the way through.

    I like your point about Leslie's first name, and I'll need to think on it for a while.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And to Andy's question: there are some movies about which it just absolutely sucks to be called out in public and admit that I know not one solitary thing about their content, because I absolutely know that I should.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I also just watched this off the back of this review, and I have to say one thing that I'm really not sure on is the presence of Robert Englund in the film. It strikes me as an immensely distracting bit of stunt casting that kept pulling me out of the film a bit - to have Freddy himself running around channelling Sam Loomis in a world where Freddy is known to have really existed isn't something I can entirely square conceptually. It doesn't help, of course, that New Nightmare already played the "Robert Englund and Freddy Krueger coexisting in the same film" card to much more deliberate effect.

    I don't doubt that Englund is a significant part of how the film developed its cult following, so in terms of getting the film seen at all it's a distraction that I'm happy to forgive.

    That said, I absolutely loved Kane Hodder's cameo, which I think largely works where Englund's appearance doesn't on the grounds that the only time we see him is when he's trying very hard not to be in the film.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I second that point about Man Bites Dog, although that films has different aims than this one, despite sharing similar conceits. Would love to see you review it some day.

    Actually that makes me think of a suggestion for next year's Summer of Blood: non-Anglophone, non-Italian horror from around the world, films produced by countries outside the usual suspects usually covered in this blog. In terms of film reviewing, Japanese horror probably falls under the usual suspects, but maybe hasn't been covered so much on this blog. But the Belgian Man Bites Dog, or something by 80s/90s Indian schlockmeisters the Ramsay Brothers, or Chinese hopping vampire films like "Mr Vampire" or all those Indonesian horror films that I hear about but haven't seen would certainly qualify.

    The review list can be quite ecclectic, ranging from cult classics to sublime little-known gems to to total nonsense. I'm sure you have access to the resources to find great and varied titles, not least of which are your devoted readers.

    Perhaps after this year's re-energizing take on this series' formula, this could be the bold new direction to take. Or it could be the Summer of Blood equivalent of Leprechaun: In the Hood.

    Regardless, I sincerely hope you'll consider this.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Leprechaun: In the Hood

    No joke, that is how I found this blog. I refuse to admit why I was looking for that movie. ;)

    That said, my vote is for Children of the Corn, if only because I know nothing at all about it except that there's a bunch of them.

    ...That or Witchcraft. Because it's funny when Tim suffers for our amusement.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Chris- Englund's solid enough as a performer that I can squint real hard and ignore that it's distracting, but I agree that Kane Hodder is used to much, much more satisfying effect. The film would definitely be better of without him, but I think you're 100% right that the cult needs him in order to form in the first place.

    Pintu/Not Fenimore- I have the broad shape of an idea for next year, and it's very compatible with "horror from all over the world". But that's a long way in the future, and it's hard to predict exactly what's going to make the most sense.

    Witchcraft is, however, not what's going to make the most sense.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I find it kind of unfair to judge Englund in that way. He gives a perfectly credible performance in a role that has nothing in common with Freddy except the broad sub-genre.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Not Fenimore - at least Leprechaun is a credible adult movie. I found my way here through The Aristocats - many kids had been watching it over for weeks and I wanted to confirm some theories I'd developed.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Tim: It's never the right time for Witchcraft. :( ;)

    ReplyDelete
  17. I first heard of the blog from the Disney-a-thon (I think Bryan Nimmo posted something about it on a message board) but I didn't actually read it until I watched Exorcist II: The Heretic, and then googled the movie in a "what the fuck did I just watch" manner that led me to Tim's review, which eventually led me to Summer of Blood, and then back to Disney, and...

    ReplyDelete
  18. First heard of the blog through Cannibal Holocaust, found that it had the best analysis of that movie around, and then noticed that was part of a series...and then read EVERYTHING. Almost.

    I agree that a "non-Anglophone, non-Italian horror" Summer of Blood sounds fantastic. Nothing to be ashamed of about Man Bites Dog; I've rented Leslie Vernon based on the review (had never heard of it before!) but haven't seen it yet, but once again based on this review, despite both being dark-comedy mockumentaries following around a serial killer and questioning the filmmaker's role, I felt like Man Bites Dog was commenting more on documentaries in general and their ethics where it sounds like this is commenting on slasher films.

    ReplyDelete
  19. That sounds pretty fascinating, and while there's a little bit of that in this movie, I think it's definitely a rich theme that needs exploring. I've got Man Bites Dog in my Netflix queue, so one of these days...

    ReplyDelete

Just a few rules so that everybody can have fun: ad hominem attacks on the blogger are fair; ad hominem attacks on other commenters will be deleted. And I will absolutely not stand for anything that is, in my judgment, demeaning, insulting or hateful to any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. And though I won't insist on keeping politics out, let's think long and hard before we say anything particularly inflammatory.

Also, sorry about the whole "must be a registered user" thing, but I do deeply hate to get spam, and I refuse to take on the totalitarian mantle of moderating comments, and I am much too lazy to try to migrate over to a better comments system than the one that comes pre-loaded with Blogger.