Connect with us

Editorials

Why You Should Chew On ‘Ravenous’ (1999)

Published

on

Everybody has at least one favorite movie that they feel has been unjustly ignored by film buffs and consumers of popular culture alike. Sometimes, audiences and critics just weren’t ready for a film’s take on certain themes and emotions, or maybe the filmmakers just had the rotten luck of dealing with fickle distributors and unfair release dates, ending up with a product that no one watched. Whatever the case, it’s unfortunate that so many great films are forgotten without ever having had the chance to shine for general audiences. To me, Antonia Bird’s darkly comedic Ravenous is one of these poor movies, which was neglected despite being one of the best cannibal thrillers of all time!

Ravenous stars Guy Pearce in one of his best roles as Second Lieutenant Boyd, a cowardly soldier of the Mexican-American war who’s exiled to a remote northern outpost. As he begins mingling with the strange garrison holed up in the desolate settlement, Boyd and the others learn of an ill-fated caravan that became trapped in the wilderness and turned to cannibalism in order to survive. As the group sets off to search for survivors, they become involved in a supernatural pursuit featuring the Native American legend of the Wendigo and an extremely suspicious Colonel Ives, played to menacing perfection by Robert Carlyle. To spoil any more of this bloodthirsty plot would be a disservice to potential viewers, so suffice to say that things turn ugly fast.

Inspired by the literary works of Dashiell Hammett, Algernon Blackwood and the real life tragedy of the Donner party, Ravenous’ story is a deeply satirical commentary on the limits of human civility and the concept of manifest destiny. Ted Griffin (now known for his work on Ocean’s Eleven) was responsible for this peculiar script, though the final product is apparently immensely different from his original vision. The script sometimes devolves into a mess of tangled plot threads, but it still ultimately works. This chaos is mostly due to some behind-the-scenes drama that almost accidentally gifted us with such an original movie.

Though it was released in 1999, Ravenous had an extremely troubled production that only settled down shortly before the film hit theaters, making it a miracle that such an underrated classic (let alone a coherent film) exists at all. The original plan was to have the project be lead by Macedonian filmmaker Milcho Manchevski, with a promising original script penned by Griffin . However, Manchevski left the production three weeks into shooting, after dealing with constant rewrites, scheduling disputes and studio interference. Eventually, Robert Carlyle recommended that his close friend and collaborator Antonia Bird take up production of the film, and she led the team to a new, darkly humorous vision that takes more inspiration from Looney Tunes than conventional period pieces and horror movies. This ushered the way to a mesmerizing movie that may not be entirely consistent, but is always compelling.

How can you say no to this face?

Hell, even the film’s profoundly bizarre and memorable soundtrack was subject to controversy, as composers Damon Albarn (yes, the co-founder of the popular animated band Gorillaz) and Michael Nyman were forced to compete for credit due to increasingly confusing production demands. Nevertheless, this unintended collaboration resulted in a phenomenal selection of music, and possibly one of the best movie soundtracks of all time. Nyman and Albarn juxtapose silly banjo compositions with epic instrumentals as the tracks attempt to keep up with (and enhance) the film’s wildly fluctuating tone, greatly contributing to the experience. I still frequently listen to these versatile tracks, especially as background music for writing, and have even used to them to set the mood for tabletop RPGs! It’s just that good.

Music isn’t the only impressive part of Ravenous, as Bird’s deliberate pacing and camera placement take a decidedly offbeat approach to what could otherwise have been a straightforward slasher movie. This weird balance of campy action and genuine tension are what make Ravenous such a unique experience, though it’s also what made the film so off-putting for viewers back in 1999, as the movie was both a critical and commercial failure. Of course, over the years a few critics have claimed that this is one of the best undiscovered classics of the 90s, but not that many people have watched it since its original release.

Either way, the movie is still an exceptionally human and atmospheric take on the myth of the Wendigo, despite not featuring a traditional incarnation of the Native American monster onscreen. Though supernatural cannibalistic forces are definitely at work, the Wendigo here is more of a metaphor than a flesh and blood ghoul. That’s why, despite the humor, this snowy thriller still boasts some deeply disturbing themes and imagery, and would satisfy any horror hound looking for some substance with his visual meal.

Now, you can’t discuss Ravenous without bringing up the surprisingly solid performances from the entire cast, not just from Pearce and Carlyle (though the interaction between these two is certainly the heart of the film). Both David Arquette and the late John Spencer have notable roles in the film, and almost every minor character is at the very least interesting, which is a rare instance in horror movies in general. Despite its flaws, the script also does a great job at characterizing these unfortunate victims, as there’s more to the people than meets the eye.

If you can stomach this brutal yet witty tale of a primitive, dog-eat-dog America, you’ll be rewarded with a chilling yet entertaining gem that serves as proof that it’s more important for a story to be consistently interesting than traditionally “good”. It may be flawed, but all these qualities suggest that Ravenous contained a burst of creative lightning that likely won’t happen again, especially when you consider the muddled backstory behind the production. This is the kind of film that compels you to love it and its faults as well.

And that, my friends, is why you should watch Ravenous. Luckily for you, it’s streaming on Netflix right now, so what are you waiting for?

Born Brazilian, raised Canadian, Luiz is a writer and Film student that spends most of his time watching movies and subsequently complaining about them.

Editorials

What’s Wrong with My Baby!? Larry Cohen’s ‘It’s Alive’ at 50

Published

on

Netflix It's Alive

Soon after the New Hollywood generation took over the entertainment industry, they started having children. And more than any filmmakers that came before—they were terrified. Rosemary’s Baby (1968), The Exorcist (1973), The Omen (1976), Eraserhead (1977), The Brood (1979), The Shining (1980), Possession (1981), and many others all deal, at least in part, with the fears of becoming or being a parent. What if my child turns out to be a monster? is corrupted by some evil force? or turns out to be the fucking Antichrist? What if I screw them up somehow, or can’t help them, or even go insane and try to kill them? Horror has always been at its best when exploring relatable fears through extreme circumstances. A prime example of this is Larry Cohen’s 1974 monster-baby movie It’s Alive, which explores the not only the rollercoaster of emotions that any parent experiences when confronted with the difficulties of raising a child, but long-standing questions of who or what is at fault when something goes horribly wrong.

Cohen begins making his underlying points early in the film as Frank Davis (John P. Ryan) discusses the state of the world with a group of expectant fathers in a hospital waiting room. They discuss the “overabundance of lead” in foods and the environment, smog, and pesticides that only serve to produce roaches that are “bigger, stronger, and harder to kill.” Frank comments that this is “quite a world to bring a kid into.” This has long been a discussion point among people when trying to decide whether to have kids or not. I’ve had many conversations with friends who have said they feel it’s irresponsible to bring children into such a violent, broken, and dangerous world, and I certainly don’t begrudge them this. My wife and I did decide to have children but that doesn’t mean that it’s been easy.

Immediately following this scene comes It’s Alive’s most famous sequence in which Frank’s wife Lenore (Sharon Farrell) is the only person left alive in her delivery room, the doctors clawed and bitten to death by her mutant baby, which has escaped. “What does my baby look like!? What’s wrong with my baby!?” she screams as nurses wheel her frantically into a recovery room. The evening that had begun with such joy and excitement at the birth of their second child turned into a nightmare. This is tough for me to write, but on some level, I can relate to this whiplash of emotion. When my second child was born, they came about five weeks early. I’ll use the pronouns “they/them” for privacy reasons when referring to my kids. Our oldest was still very young and went to stay with my parents and we sped off to the hospital where my wife was taken into an operating room for an emergency c-section. I was able to carry our newborn into the NICU (natal intensive care unit) where I was assured that this was routine for all premature births. The nurses assured me there was nothing to worry about and the baby looked big and healthy. I headed to where my wife was taken to recover to grab a few winks assuming that everything was fine. Well, when I awoke, I headed back over to the NICU to find that my child was not where I left them. The nurse found me and told me that the baby’s lungs were underdeveloped, and they had to put them in a special room connected to oxygen tubes and wires to monitor their vitals.

It’s difficult to express the fear that overwhelmed me in those moments. Everything turned out okay, but it took a while and I’m convinced to this day that their anxiety struggles spring from these first weeks of life. As our children grew, we learned that two of the three were on the spectrum and that anxiety, depression, ADHD, and OCD were also playing a part in their lives. Parents, at least speaking for myself, can’t help but blame themselves for the struggles their children face. The “if only” questions creep in and easily overcome the voices that assure us that it really has nothing to do with us. In the film, Lenore says, “maybe it’s all the pills I’ve been taking that brought this on.” Frank muses aloud about how he used to think that Frankenstein was the monster, but when he got older realized he was the one that made the monster. The aptly named Frank is wondering if his baby’s mutation is his fault, if he created the monster that is terrorizing Los Angeles. I have made plenty of “if only” statements about myself over the years. “If only I hadn’t had to work so much, if only I had been around more when they were little.” Mothers may ask themselves, “did I have a drink, too much coffee, or a cigarette before I knew I was pregnant? Was I too stressed out during the pregnancy?” In other words, most parents can’t help but wonder if it’s all their fault.

At one point in the film, Frank goes to the elementary school where his baby has been sighted and is escorted through the halls by police. He overhears someone comment about “screwed up genes,” which brings about age-old questions of nature vs. nurture. Despite the voices around him from doctors and detectives that say, “we know this isn’t your fault,” Frank can’t help but think it is, and that the people who try to tell him it isn’t really think it’s his fault too. There is no doubt that there is a hereditary element to the kinds of mental illness struggles that my children and I deal with. But, and it’s a bit but, good parenting goes a long way in helping children deal with these struggles. Kids need to know they’re not alone, a good parent can provide that, perhaps especially parents that can relate to the same kinds of struggles. The question of nature vs. nurture will likely never be entirely answered but I think there’s more than a good chance that “both/and” is the case. Around the midpoint of the film, Frank agrees to disown the child and sign it over for medical experimentation if caught or killed. Lenore and the older son Chris (Daniel Holzman) seek to nurture and teach the baby, feeling that it is not a monster, but a member of the family.

It’s Alive takes these ideas to an even greater degree in the fact that the Davis Baby really is a monster, a mutant with claws and fangs that murders and eats people. The late ’60s and early ’70s also saw the rise in mass murderers and serial killers which heightened the nature vs. nurture debate. Obviously, these people were not literal monsters but human beings that came from human parents, but something had gone horribly wrong. Often the upbringing of these killers clearly led in part to their antisocial behavior, but this isn’t always the case. It’s Alive asks “what if a ‘monster’ comes from a good home?” In this case is it society, environmental factors, or is it the lead, smog, and pesticides? It is almost impossible to know, but the ending of the film underscores an uncomfortable truth—even monsters have parents.

As the film enters its third act, Frank joins the hunt for his child through the Los Angeles sewers and into the L.A. River. He is armed with a rifle and ready to kill on sight, having divorced himself from any relationship to the child. Then Frank finds his baby crying in the sewers and his fatherly instincts take over. With tears in his eyes, he speaks words of comfort and wraps his son in his coat. He holds him close, pats and rocks him, and whispers that everything is going to be okay. People often wonder how the parents of those who perform heinous acts can sit in court, shed tears, and defend them. I think it’s a complex issue. I’m sure that these parents know that their child has done something evil, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are still their baby. Your child is a piece of yourself formed into a whole new human being. Disowning them would be like cutting off a limb, no matter what they may have done. It doesn’t erase an evil act, far from it, but I can understand the pain of a parent in that situation. I think It’s Alive does an exceptional job placing its audience in that situation.

Despite the serious issues and ideas being examined in the film, It’s Alive is far from a dour affair. At heart, it is still a monster movie and filled with a sense of fun and a great deal of pitch-black humor. In one of its more memorable moments, a milkman is sucked into the rear compartment of his truck as red blood mingles with the white milk from smashed bottles leaking out the back of the truck and streaming down the street. Just after Frank agrees to join the hunt for his baby, the film cuts to the back of an ice cream truck with the words “STOP CHILDREN” emblazoned on it. It’s a movie filled with great kills, a mutant baby—created by make-up effects master Rick Baker early in his career, and plenty of action—and all in a PG rated movie! I’m telling you, the ’70s were wild. It just also happens to have some thoughtful ideas behind it as well.

Which was Larry Cohen’s specialty. Cohen made all kinds of movies, but his most enduring have been his horror films and all of them tackle the social issues and fears of the time they were made. God Told Me To (1976), Q: The Winged Serpent (1982), and The Stuff (1985) are all great examples of his socially aware, low-budget, exploitation filmmaking with a brain and It’s Alive certainly fits right in with that group. Cohen would go on to write and direct two sequels, It Lives Again (aka It’s Alive 2) in 1978 and It’s Alive III: Island of the Alive in 1987 and is credited as a co-writer on the 2008 remake. All these films explore the ideas of parental responsibility in light of the various concerns of the times they were made including abortion rights and AIDS.

Fifty years after It’s Alive was initially released, it has only become more relevant in the ensuing years. Fears surrounding parenthood have been with us since the beginning of time but as the years pass the reasons for these fears only seem to become more and more profound. In today’s world the conversation of the fathers in the waiting room could be expanded to hormones and genetic modifications in food, terrorism, climate change, school and other mass shootings, and other threats that were unknown or at least less of a concern fifty years ago. Perhaps the fearmongering conspiracy theories about chemtrails and vaccines would be mentioned as well, though in a more satirical fashion, as fears some expectant parents encounter while endlessly doomscrolling Facebook or Twitter. Speaking for myself, despite the struggles, the fears, and the sadness that sometimes comes with having children, it’s been worth it. The joys ultimately outweigh all of that, but I understand the terror too. Becoming a parent is no easy choice, nor should it be. But as I look back, I can say that I’m glad we made the choice we did.

I wonder if Frank and Lenore can say the same thing.

Continue Reading