The Who - The ELITE Collection

As an intermediate level fan of The Who (I think they're a great band, but I don't own their entire discography), I've found that The Ultimate Collection is actually a pretty satisfying collection of songs that represent The Who - from their early breakout singles (I Can't Explain), to their epic middle period (Won't Get Fooled Again), down to their waning hits (Eminence Front). In the world of greatest hits compilations, there are many methodologies, but two basic formats - the single disc "essential" collection, and the more comprehensive double disc compendium. The Ultimate Collection is the latter of the two, yet listening to it, I am taken by the desire to squeeze it down to a single refined disc by eliminating the lesser half of the songs on the tracklist. You know, just for fun. So here's what I would pick (your selections may vary):

I Can't Explain
My Generation
Substitute
Boris The Spider
I Can See For Miles
Magic Bus
Pinball Wizard
See Me Feel Me
The Seeker
Summertime Blues (Live)
Baba O'Riley
Won't Get Fooled Again
5:15
Love Reign O'er Me
Who Are You
You Better You Bet
Eminence Front
I was especially harsh on the tracks from Who's Next and Quadrophenia, just because they're two of The Who's best albums, and contain several tracks good enough to include - but I wanted to keep the disc nicely distributed, without too strong a focus on any one period.

I was also tempted to put in A Quick One, While He's Away, which is a good, fun song, but it's a bit long. Other tracks I would have considered adding (if that were the task) include Water and Naked Eye, which you can get on expanded editions of Who's Next, as well as Heaven And Hell (a b-side I'm fond of) and Shakin' All Over (a great rock n roll cover in the vein of Summertime Blues) both from Live At Leeds. And lastly, I would consider throwing in Sparks, as it's probably my favorite track from Tommy, being a sort of thematic overture to the piece (and I do have a thing for instrumental tracks).

But, the tracklist is already maxed out as it is (time-wise). It proved to be a more difficult task than I thought it was going to be!

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

I was not expecting to like The Rocky Horror Picture Show as much as I have. I'm not generally a fan of musicals (with one conspicuous exception), and while I do enjoy engaging in transvestitism, it's because I like the clothing that looks sexy on girls, not because I like to see other men wearing it. And though I'm very tolerant of alternative lifestyles, I've never really been very connected to the 'queer' community (I hope that's not offensive, I use the term with affection). I wonder how much my appreciation for Rocky Horror is related to my experience humping a hot girl in lingerie on stage the night I first saw it, at the theater. But now that I've had a chance to watch the movie again at home (so I can actually understand what's going on - not that the story makes a whole lot of sense anyway), I still find that I like it.

"It's not easy having a good time."

Now, the iconic image of this movie is that of Tim Curry dressed in drag, who spends much of the movie pining for a buff man in skimpy underwear. But the fact is, you don't have to be gay to like the film. My favorite scene is when Janet tears off most of her clothing and gets fondled by Rocky. Curry's character Frank-N-Furter is more pansexual than anything - he's neither straight nor gay, he's just free of hangups and social conventions. It was actually a queer interpretation of the film (in response to Glee's recent emasculation of the story's thrust) that increased my appreciation for what it stands for. It's all about the triumph of the counterculture over boring, traditional (prudish) values. If you can get over the sexual hangups, 'queer' culture is just another form of social rebellion; queer is to straight as freak is to square (akin to the kink community's usage of the term 'vanilla'). 'Heterosexual' and 'straight' don't have to be synonymous.

"What's this, let's see - I feel...sexy."

The movie itself is highly quirky, and very bizarre. But wonder of wonders, it's actually good - despite being a send-up of the horror/sci-fi b movie features it adoringly mocks. Rocky Horror is actually not all that scary - although it's essentially a perversion (literally) of the Frankenstein story - and is as much sci-fi as anything else. But what it is mostly is fun, and I'm sure that's why it has such an enthusiastic cult following. And that's precisely the atmosphere that's amplified in the theater when you go to see the movie complete with audience participation, costumes, and maybe even a shadow cast. It's all about having fun. And the music is pretty good, too. ;-)

However, I still prefer Tim Curry as the Lord of Darkness to an alien transvestite. :p

"Don't dream it - be it."

Note to "virgins": If you're interested in discovering what all the fuss is about, and you're trying to decide whether to watch The Rocky Horror Picture Show for the first time in a theater or at home, I say, it can't hurt to watch it at home first. Unless you see it with a pretty small crowd, you're going to have a hard time following the story and dialogue/songs through all the 'audience participation'. Once you've seen it at home, then I think you'll be in a better position to appreciate the excitement of seeing it with a crowd (and yeah, it's worth experiencing at least once - more if you end up liking it).

Trick 'r Treat (2007)

Trick 'r Treat is a nice period piece - not historical period, but seasonal period. It, like not enough films do, perfectly captures the atmosphere of Halloween. Indeed, the enthusiasm with which the town in this film celebrates Halloween makes me jealous that my own town isn't as dedicated to what is my favorite holiday of the year.

Trick 'r Treat is fun, and clever, and also scary. But what really sets it apart is its narrative structure, which has been compared to Pulp Fiction, in that it depicts several different stories involving different characters, occurring more or less simultaneously, all within the same locality, that often overlap. And in trying to capture the Halloween atmosphere, it provides us with a nice hodgepodge of thematic elements that serves as much to honor the spirit of Halloween as to revel in it.

And the greatest element of the story is its reverence of Halloween. The film opens with a Halloween-hater getting her comeuppance at the hands of an unidentified killer - and all I could say in spite of myself was, "this bitch totally has it coming." The rest of the film spends a lot of time showing the gruesome ways in which those who disrespect the holiday, and opt out of honoring Halloween's traditions (it is, as one character rightly explains, a holiday that predates Christianity), are punished, often by a mysterious sack-headed costumer no larger than a child (I suppose we are, ultimately, led to believe that he embodies the very spirit of Halloween).

I have to say, I might not rate Trick 'r Treat as one of the greatest movies I've ever seen, but as a Halloween movie, it absolutely delivers. It captures the spirit of the holiday, and to those of us who love horror and think Halloween is the greatest time of year, it's like a good friend who's there to pat us on the back when everyone around us is complaining about how much they hate Halloween. It's got vampires, and werewolves (hands down, the sexiest werewolf transformation I've ever seen), and ghosts, and serial killers, and zombies. There are Halloween parades and parties, and kids in costumes going door to door. Candy and jack-o-lanterns and Halloween lore. And scares galore!

Fright Night (1985)

Many many years ago, I caught a segment of a horror movie on television, that featured a transformation sequence so shockingly gruesome that it was etched into my memory. Yet, I hadn't the slightest idea what that film was (I guess I didn't have the foresight to check at the time), and I promptly pushed that memory towards the back of my mind. Until last month, during a discussion with a fellow horror fan at a local horror convention. He mentioned the movie Fright Night, and how it was known for having one of the best transformation sequences in horror film history. Could this be the film I remembered?

Indeed it was. Fright Night starts out favorably, planting itself as one of those fun horror movies that doesn't take itself too seriously. The characters are amusing, and the premise - a high school boy suspects his new next door neighbor is a vampire - is cozy. It was almost shocking for me to see Amanda Bearse, who plays Marcy on Married With Children, not only in a different role, but cast as the high school sweetheart. I thought some of the decorations in the lead protagonist's bedroom were amusing - like the neon beer sign (he's in high school, so it's pretty cheeky for him to advertise his appreciation for alcohol), and the "Girls' Locker Room" sign that I wouldn't mind having in my own room. ;-)

The "Fright Night" concept is itself perhaps the most clever element of this story. In the film, Fright Night is a horror franchise (probably not unlike Hammer Films) that hosts horror movies on television featuring a character named Peter Vincent, who plays a vampire killer in many of those [fictional] films (his favorite being "Orgy of the Damned" - mine too :p). So when Charley (aforementioned lead protagonist) suspects his neighbor is a vampire, he attempts to enlist Peter Vincent's help - giving him, reluctantly, a chance to be a real vampire killer like he is in the movies. The only thing that would make this premise more clever is if "Fright Night" was a real life franchise outside the film (which I began to suspect part way through the film) - like Creepshow or Tales From The Crypt or one of those titles.

Unfortunately, once the film starts to pick up momentum, it begins to drag, and - particularly in the night club scene - becomes far too entrenched in eighties culture, to its detriment. Watching that scene, I began to speculate - and that's all this is - that maybe the reason so many people dig the eighties is because, despite the horrendous fashions, everything was so safe during the eighties. Think about it. People in the sixties were waging a revolution, the seventies fostered the fallout of that revolution, and by the nineties, we've got the alternative culture picking up. The only thing safer than the eighties was the fifties, and I know some people who really dig on fifties revisionism, too. (And let's not talk about the hypocrisy of the oh-so-popular Victorian age).

Luckily, the movie picks up again in its last act. The creature effects in this movie are truly top notch. As mentioned, the transformations are amazing, and the death scenes for the monsters are particularly gruesome. The best one of all is the scene that I remember from years ago, which is incredibly intense, on both a visceral and an emotional level. It's really amazing, because this could be a scene from one of the greatest horror movies of all time - if only the rest of this movie were better than it is. It's a shame these creatures and effects weren't used in a more serious, more psychologically heavy film, because they could have been downright terrifying. Here, they're still impressive, but they're more of a cool effect to admire than something that adds to the atmosphere of the film.

Still, they're so good, it's worth seeing, even if the rest of the movie doesn't live up to their promise. And anyway, it's still a fun movie to watch. I'm just the type that prefers more serious movies. I'll leave you with what I thought was a funny quote given by Peter Vincent on being sacked due to the changing nature of horror fandom in the eighties. It really seems to capture the zeitgeist of the times (for better or worse - and I don't necessarily consider it a bad thing):

"Nobody wants to see vampire killers anymore, or vampires either. Apparently all they want are demented madmen running around in ski masks hacking up young virgins."

Phantasm (1979)

Phantasm is a wonderfully creepy film. It feels a little off, in that the editing is choppy, and the acting a bit wooden, but what it excels at is maintaining a very creepy tone throughout the film. The music, and the images, and the sounds, all work together to create a strange and foreboding atmosphere.

The horror elements are infused with a healthy dose of science fiction (I noticed what must have been thinly veiled homages to both Dune and Star Wars), which makes them both unusual and unpredictable. Mike's exploding hammer is brilliant! And the dwarves sound positively ferocious, which adds to their menace.

One of the best scare elements in this film is utilized a lot in the beginning, perfectly capturing the unease of seeing something strange in the corner of your vision, just as it dodges out of view. Very creepy. And speaking of the beginning, I love that the film opens with a scene of two people making love in a graveyard (though as you can imagine, it quickly turns sinister)!

I'm sorry, but isn't she just gorgeous?

The Walking Dead: Season 2 Episode 3 (Save The Last One)

Spoiler Warning!

Holy shit.

Episode 3 of The Walking Dead's second season shows us how Shane and Otis fare in the zombie-infested high school while trying to bring medical supplies back to the camp to save young Carl's life. Meanwhile, Glenn and T Dog join the group at the farm, and Dale and the others keep watch for Sophia back at the RV on the highway.

I have to admit, I really like Daryl as a character. I haven't read up on the comics that inspired this TV show (even though I had planned on doing so - and I intend to in the near future), but judging from Robert Kirkman (the writer of those comics)'s comments on the Talking Dead special that's been airing on AMC, Daryl is an original character for the TV series - and thus a wild card, since readers of the comics don't know his fate.

His brother Merle didn't ingratiate himself to the group very well, but Daryl seems to be a good person, and above all, he knows how to survive - while keeping a relatively positive attitude, too. He almost has me convinced that Sophia really is okay, after all, and that they'll find her. And with Rick starting to lose it over his son's condition, the group really needs a level-headed leader. But he's not as sympathetic towards the walkers, judging from his attitude towards the hanged man. On the other hand, his passive attitude toward meddling in the fate of others demonstrates his conviction not to make other people's choices for them, which seems to be the theme of this episode.

For example, Lori begins to consider whether letting Carl die here and now is not the more merciful decision, than fighting for him to stay alive, to have to endure living in such a hellish world any longer. Which is partly surprising, giving Lori's strength in the face of adversity, and her love for her son. But she has a good point. Still, I truly admire Rick's unswerving faith in his will to live, and his dedication to hope beyond reason. So though it's not as dramatic as his earlier silent pause in response to Lori's question of why it's worth living on in this hell, I was glad that he later found a reason to give her.

It was a combination of there still being beauty in this world (the deer), as well as the fact that Carl, during the brief period when he was lucid, focused on that - the good feelings he had been having, and not the fact that he had just been shot and must have been in great pain. But the most important point of all was that Carl seemed to want to live, and it's not really Lori nor Rick's decision to decide whether to kill him mercifully - whether to live on in this hell or not is something every person has a right to decide, but only for themselves.

Which brings us to Shane. I was really, honestly, truly, starting to like Shane again, even after all the questionable things he's done. He really stood up and did what needed to be done for Carl in terms of getting those medical supplies from the zombie-infested school. I've also come to like Otis - the man who accidentally shot Carl. I was prepared to totally hate this guy when that happened, but he turned out to be such a nice guy, and genuinely resentful of his accident, and so insistent on doing whatever he could to make up for it, I couldn't help liking him. So it's sad that he ended up allegedly sacrificing himself for Carl's sake, though poetically just. That rocketed my appreciation for him up even more...until I found out the truth.

In doing everything he could to accomplish his task, Shane may have finally crossed the line he's been walking for so long. I thought in my mind how perfect it would have been for Otis to sacrifice himself, using his larger size as an advantage to stave off the zombies long enough for Shane to make it out alive. But then when I found out Shane had effectively killed him - making that decision for him - for that very reason, that changed everything. The outcome is the same - and I'm sure that's what Shane was focusing on - but the difference is merciful sacrifice versus murder for advantage.

The ultimate question is, was Shane justified in committing murder in that instance, thinking there was no other way to get out, knowing that the success or failure of his mission could determine the fate of Carl's life? To what extent are we bound by a code of ethics in a world without law, where the dead walk the earth, feeding on the living? Can exceptions be made, or is it more imperative than ever that we follow that code and choose right actions?

Regardless of the answer to these questions, it's very clear that Shane is dangerous - to the point of almost becoming a villain. He may be on our side, but for how long, and what lengths will he go to against someone he perceives as a threat to his own survival, or the survival of those he cares about? Clearly, he's not comfortable with his actions - is there room for forgiveness, and is he obligated to tell the rest of the group the truth about what happened to Otis? Does the answer to that question depend on how it would affect the cohesiveness of the group, or not?

This is what makes The Walking Dead such a great series. Tough questions, with even tougher answers. And continuing on the God front, Maggie from the farm group makes a good point about the absence of God in a world practically devoured by the walking undead. Whether he's up there or not - and the evidence that he is isn't very strong - it's up to us to do what we can to make things right, not to rely on God to fix our problems for us...

Requiem (2006)

Requiem is the most realistic exorcism movie I've ever seen. There are no demons (not explicitly, anyway), and although there are some emotionally intense scenes, it's more of a drama than a horror. But that's what makes it so intelligent. Unlike The Exorcism of Emily Rose, which was based on the same true story, Requiem's purpose is not to scare you with hellish visions of demonic possession, but rather to take a restrained and sensitive look at the situation and consider, without sensationalism, what may have actually happened.

In other exorcism movies, you hardly care at all about the girl being possessed, beyond the fact that she's innocent and being harrassed by the devil. In Requiem, we get a chance to meet the girl, named Michaela in this adaptation of the story, and observe how her condition develops. She suffers from epilepsy, and while there's enough ambiguity to preclude me from stating straight out that she was definitely not possessed, it's pretty clear that her problems were more physiological than spiritual in nature. But what makes this story so fascinating is that we get to see how this girl, Michaela, confronts her own condition, and how, even though her reluctance to rely on medical help (and I can't entirely blame her, considering how doctors are) in lieu of spiritual assistance may have contributed to her death, that she actually finds meaning in her possession, and perhaps died happy, believing she was a martyr for God.

Of course, it's sad, because given the proper psychiatric treatment, she may have lived a much fuller life. But the frightening thing is that a lot of what she believed in, and the arguments she used, I can relate to. The frustration of having to deal with being dealt a crappy hand by God, and wanting to believe - not that God doesn't love you - but that you are being tested in some way. That the desperation of your condition is the cost of being special in His eyes. That there's some kind of point to it. One must not neglect the psychological effect a physical condition can have on a person - even to the point of believing the medical condition is caused by a spiritual affliction. But again, I think this is where psychiatric intervention would have made a crucial difference in the outcome.

This is every bit the story I had wished The Exorcism of Emily Rose had been, after reading into the true story that inspired it. Although I anticipated a more obvious antagonism via the girl's parents and religious upbringing (though her mother was a significant problem), this film is not as critical against religious belief as I would have made it. In fact, the film doesn't seem to have a driving message at all - it is very passive in its presentation of the events, which I think serves it well. In the end, you get the sense that the filmmakers are trying only to emphasize the girl's struggle, in a way that shows her respect, without necessarily signing off on the things she believed in. (On the other hand, they do seem to de-emphasize the grueling nature of the exorcism process itself).

I feel like that's how I approach religious people in my life - I try to respect what their beliefs mean to them, without believing in them myself. And yet, the lingering tragedy of this story is the knowledge that this girl, though she may have found peace with her condition before her death, may have lived to accomplish so much more given the right opportunity. Yet in the end, it really was her choice, though we can argue how much that choice was influenced by the suggestions of those around her. (I totally spotted a poster for The Exorcist in the corner of one scene, which came out in Germany around the time that the true story occurred, and was said to have been a potential catalyst for the girl's behaviors).

All in all, Requiem is a very good dramatic horror, if I may call it that, that feels quite like a good arthouse film. Although the camera's a tad bit shaky at some parts, the characters are likable, the soundtrack is fantastic, and this novel approach to the very popular story of demonic possession and exorcism is quite compelling. I recommend it to those who are looking for something a little bit deeper than your typical scare film.