Quantcast
Connect with us

Editorials

[Editorial] Let’s Talk About Managing Expectations…

Published

on

Managing Expectations

Over the last few days, you may have heard about a film called Hereditary (our review). Ari Aster‘s debut film has been heralded as one of the scariest movies ever made and a sure thing for the best horror film of 2018 (and it’s onlyFebruary). Six months before its release, the film already has a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (based off of 16 reviews) and an average score of 8.8/10, which is pretty impressive.You may be overjoyed with the prospect of a new, original and terrifying horror film being released in the middle of summer. However, you may be dreading the film’s wide release not because it might be bad, but because like me, you know that everyone will probably hate it. Let me explain.

This phenomenon of a festival darling being praised after an initial screening only to be loathed by mainstream audiences once it is released is nothing new, but the horror genre seems to have been hit hard with this occurrence lately. Jennifer Kent‘s The Babadook premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in 2014 to rave reviews, only to see a wide release just four months later. It was met with a tepid audience response. That same year David Robert Mitchell‘s It Follows premiered at the Cannes Film Festival to critical acclaim, but when it was released 10 months(!) later it failed to make much of an impression with audiences. The same thing happened with Robert Eggers‘ The Witch (Sundance premiere in January 2015 and a wide release in February of 2016) and Trey Edward Shults‘ It Comes at Night (Overlook Film Festival premiere in April 2017 and a wide release just two months later in June 2017). I fear that the same thing is going to happen with Hereditary. As evidenced by the aforementioned films’ critical reception, they were all extremely well-received:

  • The Babadook – 98% Rotten Tomatoes score with an average rating of 8.2/10.
  • It Follows – 97% Rotten Tomatoes score with an average rating of 8.1/10.
  • The Witch – 91% Rotten Tomatoes score with an average rating of 7.8/10.
  • It Comes at Night – 88% Rotten Tomatoes score with an average rating of 7.4/10.

So why aren’t the majority of audiences being won over by these films like the critics are? Many will tell you it’s because they are over-hyped. These films receive rave reviews months and, in some cases, years ahead of their respective release dates. Mainstream audiences who are unable to attend festivals are then left to soak up the hype, reading review after review and article after article every week until the film’s release. By the time the film comes out, expectations are so high that the film can’t possibly meet them. Viewers walk out of the theater feeling betrayed by critics and let down by the film. Sometimes the viewer’s sense of betrayal is justified, like when a film’s marketing advertises a completely different film than the one that actually exists (as evidenced by the trailers for It Comes at NightBug and mother!). That reasoning is not true of films like The WitchThe Babadook and It Follows. With those films, viewers went on to bash critics and news outlets for hyping up the film. While it is true that some outlets can be hyperbolic when releasing articles about a film, they are just doing their job. Over-hype is partly their (our) fault, but the fact that the viewer doesn’t, or refuses to, share responsibility in over-hyping a film is baffling. After all, do they need to read all those reviews or watch the trailer multiple times a week?

An important thing to put into perspective is the festival-going process. When you attend a film festival, you are watching up to 6 films a day, every day, for 7-10 days. That means you could be watching anywhere from 42 to 60 films in a week and a half (the most I’ve ever made it to is 30 in one festival). Films start to blur together and flaws in them become more apparent, especially when you start seeing the same things done in multiple films. This means that when you see a film that is different, you’re likely to rave about it. Again, it can be hyperbolic, but in the heat of the moment, it makes sense. If you’ve eaten nothing but brown rice for every meal, then you’re bound to go a little nuts when you finally get a steak dinner. When you are a critic, you also have to review most of the films you see which means you have to really be in your head looking for things you like and things you don’t like while you’re watching a film. Your attention to detail needs to be razor sharp since you’ve got to write roughly 800-1,000 words for each review. It always makes me laugh when someone, after reading a negative review for a film, says that the critic who wrote it was just looking for something to dislike about the film. They probably were. It’s part of their job. Another part of their job to look for the good in a film. When I’m watching a film that I know I will be reviewing, I am looking for things that I like and things that I dislike so that I can write about those things in my review, but I digress.

The purpose of this article is to remind you that while over-hype is absolutely a thing that exists, there is a way to avoid it: read a review or two and mark the release date on your calendar (or just do what I do and check Rotten Tomatoes every Monday for a list of films being released that week). I’m not saying it’s entirely your fault for building up your expectations, but you’ve got to take some of the blame. If you end up not liking Hereditary because you don’t think it’s a good movie then there is nothing wrong with that, but if you don’t like it because it was over-hyped and it didn’t meet your expectations because you over-hyped it, then that is not a valid criticism.

Lest you think I’m scolding you with this article, it should be noted that I frequently do exactly what it is I’m telling you not to do. When The Babadook came out in 2014 I didn’t think it was anything special because I had such high expectations. The same thing happened to me with It Follows (though I have seen It Follows twice more since I saw it in theaters and I appreciate it more on each viewing). I have learned my lesson and have been working on managing my expectations ever since. I implore you to do the same. As we have discussed multiple times on this site, not every person is afraid of the same thing. Horror doesn’t have to scare you to be a horror film and we all have different ideas of what is scary. If 270 critics say that Hereditary is the scariest film they’ve seen since The Exorcist but you barely flinch while viewing it, that’s alright! But don’t take it out on the film because you thought that, based on the word of mouth you’ve been hearing for six months, it would be scarier.

It is inevitable that people will walk out of Hereditary feeling betrayed. I know that without having even seen the film because I’ve seen it happen too many times before. Just keep your expectations in check until the film is released on June 8th. Remember that there were walkouts during its premiere so not everyone will like it. Don’t obsess over reading reviews (although this one will probably give you the best idea of the type of film you are in for with minimal spoilers). Don’t watch the trailer once a day. If you do that then you will be setting yourself up for disappointment. It is very rare that the movie will live up to the version of it you have created in your mind. Go in expecting a pretty decent horror film and I bet you’ll walk out happy. Here’s the trailer if you choose not to follow my advice though:

A journalist for Bloody Disgusting since 2015, Trace writes film reviews and editorials, as well as co-hosts Bloody Disgusting's Horror Queers podcast, which looks at horror films through a queer lens. He has since become dedicated to amplifying queer voices in the horror community, while also injecting his own personal flair into film discourse. Trace lives in Denver, CO with his husband and their two dogs. Find him on Twitter @TracedThurman

205 Comments

Editorials

Neon-Soaked Cult Classic ‘Vamp’ Starring Grace Jones Still Has Bite 40 Years Later

Published

on

Vamp 1986
Grace Jones and Dedee Pfeiffer in Vamp

College kids, strippers and vampires—those were Donald P. Borchers’ only requirements when he approached Richard Wenk about writing and directing a movie for New World Pictures. As requested, Wenk cooked up Vamp (1986), a tailor-made blend of the decade’s teen movie craze as well as its horror boom.

Grim and earnest stories were still very much a part of the ’80s horror landscape, yet Vamp is something of a comedy. One difference between it and, say, Saturday the 14th, though, is the former avoids using schtick. Wenk’s movie proves that horror comedies also don’t have to subtract thrills from their recipes. Of course, it takes a minute before reaching that point; college antics and culture shocks preface this one macabre misadventure.

Vamp‘s initial setup is apt for a typical college-set, sex-driven comedy; to bribe their way into a fraternity house, two pledges (Chris Makepeace, Robert Rusler) go looking for some adult entertainment. Without wasting time on any further exposition, the characters embark on an all-in-one-night trip that quickly detours into terror.

To procure their elusive MacGuffin—a stripper willing to gyrate for some frat boys—Keith (Makepeace) and AJ (Rusler), plus a third wheel named Duncan (Gedee Watanabe), trade the safety of their remote college campus for the seediness of some unnamed city. The setting is recognizably L.A. by day, but as soon as night falls, downtown, along with the characters, slips into a kind of surreal universe. Director of photography Elliot Davis gave this early entry on his prolific résumé an unusual yet distinctive look; that Mario Bava-esque, magenta-green lighting is omnipresent, so much so that it’s almost its own character. 

vamp

Chris Makepeace and Robert Rusler in Vamp

The faint comparisons to Martin Scorsese’s After Hours are merited, although not just because of Vamp’s distinguishing nighttime aesthetic. Save for the primary characters, the supporting roles in Wenk’s movie are also quite colorful and transactional in their behavior. The difference here, though, is the additional urge to ruin Keith and his friends at every turn. Some of that harm is humorous and tolerable enough, whereas the moment Vamp dishes out its first fatality, it’s abundantly clear how this movie qualifies as horror.

Vamp falls into that category of horror movie that reveals its genre with a scream rather than a series of whispers. The opening scene can function as a hint of what lies ahead—things are not at all what they appear to be—but otherwise, Wenk is more than happy to hold off on the horror. When that time does come, though, it catches the viewer off guard. In addition to the pure shock value is that sudden decision to upend the movie’s foremost feature. Or so it would seem.

If afraid of major spoilage, those new to Vamp would be wise to stop reading here. There’s just no skirting around the fact that the central fellowship in this buddy movie hits a serious snag when AJ is killed. That development causes the story to become more of a “long, bad night” journey for Keith and his romantic interest. So while Wenk scores points for subverting expectations, there is also a touch of sadness in his decision. Because if Vamp does anything well, it’s making the characters likable.

Something that comes easily to Vamp—and other teen horror movies from this same era—is its ability to invent young characters worth caring about, or at the very least, are interesting and not so immediately off-putting. More impressive is how Wenk did all this without actually fleshing out those characters. Still and all, Keith and his kind are a grade above cookie-cutter, and in some cases, aren’t completely devoid of growth.

vamp

Grace Jones in Vamp

Vamp appeals with an assorted cast of characters. No two are the same, nor are they operating on the same wavelength. The cinematically extroverted AJ, whose actor conveyed charm and vulnerability in near equal amounts, comes alive when he’s at his most undead. Makepeace then makes the chronically cautious Keith a sympathetic fellow, even as he’s more and more affected by the night’s bizarre events. Meanwhile, Duncan is indeed the designated loser of the whole bunch, but Watanabe still manages to humanize him. As a bonus, the role didn’t require him to pull a Long Duk Dong.

As for Dedee Pfeiffer, she is plain adorable as the mysterious After Dark server nicknamed “Amaretto”. She spends all night fixing her dress strap while at the same time trying to get Keith to remember how he knows her. As their offbeat romance grows, it becomes another highlight of this movie. Whether or not Pfeiffer’s character is really a vampire also creates some welcome tension in the story.

Like a lot of its contemporaries, Vamp went on to become a bit of a cult classic. That current status is determined by several factors, but without a doubt, the casting of Grace Jones is the most considerable. The image of her writhing on that unique-looking chair, a Keith Haring original, springs to mind whenever this movie is brought up.

vamp

Chris Makepeace, Billy Drago and Paunita Nichols in Vamp

Prior to that first display of unequivocal horror, local vampire queen Katrina (Jones) took to the stage and delivered a strip show like no other. One would expect nothing less from that renowned model and performance artist. By now reports of Jones’ tardiness on set are no secret, yet it’s also hard to deny her commitment to the part of Katrina. It was, in fact, Jones who took charge of her character’s appearance—on top of Haring painting her body and that now-iconic chair, she had Andy Warhol handle her costuming. And not too many actors could seize a room’s attention without saying a single line of dialogue.

In 2022, Vamp received a retrospective novelization from Encyclopocalypse. This literary union of preexisting source material—Wenk’s original screenplay—and new ideas from author Christian Francis amounts to a more comprehensive visit to the After Dark Club. The basic story there is no different than what’s shown on screen; however, Francis gets creative with the characters’ origins and designs, and he enhances a number of key scenes.

The novelization expands on the urban and social decay of the main setting, and supplies a background for the After Dark Club. Sandy Baron’s character, Katrina’s emcee and familiar, is given ample motivation for sticking around; up until the fiery end, he is loyal to his friend and former business partnerSqueak, who looks like he wasfed through a combine harvester, and left as nothing more than a heap of mangled remains. Then there is Billy Drago’s character Snow, the leader of a street gang called The Dragons. His reason for menacing Keith and AJ is more altruistic than in the movie; he and his peers act tough to scare off any potential food for the vampires. 

vamp

Lisa Lyon in Vamp

If not for all the backstories, Francis’ Vamp would be a hell of a lot shorter. Instead, this tie-in read dives into how AJ met Keith—the orphaned Anthony Joseph hailed from a broken home back in Brooklyn—and how their friendship flourished over the years. Keith’s archership is no longer just an assumed part of his entire being; it’s a confidence-building extracurricular for a boy who got picked on before coming into the protection of the new kid in town. These supplemental, in-depth looks at the protagonists, plus their close connection, are maybe unnecessary. The movie already did a fair and concise job of addressing their platonic intimacy without the need for flashbacks and insights, specifically in that scene where AJ lays it all out as he sacrifices himself.

Where the novelization gets off course is its approach to the minor characters. Intermittently backstorying the likes of Katrina’s indentured servants, Seko (Leila Hee Olsen) and Vlad (Brad Logan), ends up disturbing the flow of the writing. Was it absolutely essential that readers know Vlad was the Grand Duke of the House of Romanov, or how Snow’s accomplice Maven (Paunita Nichols) became so dentally challenged? No, not really. However, one’s mileage with these random biographies may vary.

The novelization is a more substantial experience, but for a movie like Vamp, less is more. And as plentiful as they are, it never simply coasts on its campy charms, either. The character work sits comfortably in that realm between cursory and meticulous, the script is sharper than first realized, and Greg Cannom’s vampire makeup is straightforward yet effective. Most of all, the movie didn’t squander its out-of-the-box concept. Richard Wenk made his vision of acomic nightmare in which just about anything that can go wrong doescome true, and it is very enjoyable.

Continue Reading