Editorials
Arthouse Exploitation? Exploring the Meta-Horror of ‘Nocturnal Animals’
Meta-narratives may have only recently become popular in mainstream media, but stories within stories have been a part of human culture since ancient times. From One Thousand and One Nights to Neil Gaiman’s The Sandman, our fascination with the repercussions of storytelling has itself been transformed into fuel for compelling stories, and this also applies to the horror genre.
Cosmic horror yarns are chock-full of characters who go mad after reading cursed tomes, and we’ve already covered the meta-terror of Mark Z. Danielewski’s House of Leaves, but few movies have managed to capture the magic of being deeply disturbed by an unnaturally gripping story. One exception to this is Tom Ford’s controversial thriller Nocturnal Animals, with the fashion-designer-turned-filmmaker using the film’s Russian doll setup to explore how horror narratives can be used to communicate.
Based on a novel by Austin Wright, the 2016 film follows art gallery curator Susan (Amy Adams) as she works her way through an unsettling manuscript mailed to her by her ex-husband Edward (Jake Gylenhaal). The manuscript describes a terrifying thriller about an unsuspecting family being harassed by criminals during a Texas road trip, with the father (again played by Gyllenhaal) being forced to embark on a grief-filled quest for closure after the horrific incident. Along the way, Susan is slowly affected by her reactions to the deeply personal novel, with the film intercutting her life and memories with the story she’s reading.
While critics almost unanimously praised Adams, Gyllenhaal and Michael Shannon (who plays a cancer-ridden detective in the story-within-the-story), many reviewers accused the film of being excessively dense, pointing out the paper-thin connections between the layers of narrative and some baffling creative decisions (like that bizarre opening). There was also plenty of criticism directed at the film’s treatment of women, with some outlets even labeling Nocturnal Animals as an exploitation flick masquerading as an arthouse picture.
Despite these controversies, the movie was ultimately well-received by film festivals and awards shows, proving that Ford wasn’t just a one-trick-pony when it came to filmmaking.
So Why is it Worth Watching?
For starters, the aforementioned praise of the film’s performances wasn’t exaggerated. Almost every single actor is at the top of their game here, from Gyllenhaal’s frantic grieving father to Shannon’s doomed detective. And while Adams’ character is mostly a reactive figure, even she finds ways to insert nuance and personality into a complex individual that could have easily come off as unlikable.
Aaron Taylor Johnson also delivers some of the best acting of his career as an all-too-believable sociopath, with the filmmakers being confident enough to let the actor portray the character as a flawed human being instead of taking the easy way out and making him a cartoonish villain. It actually takes a while for you to register Johnson and his buddies as a genuine threat, but once things kick into gear, they quickly become some of the most hateable antagonists in fiction.
Other than the smorgasbord of memorable performances, the film also works as an intellectual exercise, letting viewers figure out the stories’ connections on their own time without spelling out any obvious answers. While certain recurring themes, like the contrasting depictions of masculinity, make it clear that there is an overarching narrative at work here, the story also functions at face value as a surprisingly harrowing thriller.
After all, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and the film’s individual pieces work on their own as excellent bits of genre entertainment, making it so that you can still enjoy Nocturnal Animals even if you’re not willing to engage with its narratological baggage.
What Makes it Horror Adjacent?
Backwoods horror may not be as prevalent now as it was back in the 70s, but it’s hard to watch the story-within-the-story of Nocturnal Animals and not be reminded of uncomfortable classics like Deliverance, Straw Dogs and even Wes Craven’s The Last House on the Left. Ford’s film may not be a bona-fide horror flick, especially during the melodramatic “real life” segments, but it certainly emulates a lot of genre thrills and even features an unexpected jump scare or two.
That being said, Johnson’s character and his gang come off as genuinely scary individuals precisely because of how stripped down the narrative is, with Ford (and Wright before him) forgoing common genre tropes and focusing on the primal emotions behind this awful situation. This grounded perspective transforms a familiar setup that could easily be the opening act of a Liam Neeson flick into a truly horrific ordeal.
Hell, the kidnapping itself feels so real that it could have been ripped straight from tabloid headlines (even if the ending gets a bit more symbolic), but the build-up is just as terrifying. It slowly dawns on the viewer that things are worse than they appear and there’s nothing that these characters can do to escape. Honestly, I can’t even remember the last time that I was so uncomfortable while watching a movie, and the knowledge that this is just make-believe doesn’t actually make things any less terrifying, with audiences being left to question why exactly Edward would want Susan to read this.
Sure, the tension lets up a little bit once the family’s ordeal is concluded and Gyllenhaal’s character is left to pick up the pieces, but that first half of the story will certainly appeal to fans of realistic terror. I don’t quite agree with critics who accused Nocturnal Animals of being an exploitation flick, especially since it features some really poignant reflections on ill-fated relationships, but there’s no denying that the film has at least one foot in the horror genre.
There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.
The problem with filming sequels back-to-back is that, unless you can afford expensive reshoots, there’s no easy way to adjust course in between movies if fans react badly to where the story is headed. That’s why it’s important to have a complete narrative thought out well in advance lest you accidentally kill a budding franchise.
However, this isn’t always the case. Every once in a while, it seems like the cinema gods smile upon certain chaotic productions and gift moviegoers with complete franchises that feel like more than the sum of their hastily produced parts. Ted Nicolaou’s Bloodlust: Subspecies III is precisely one of these miraculous pictures, with the raw talents of the artists involved (as well as the continued support from Romania) turning the feature into an effective conclusion for a series that kind of made things up as the filmmakers went along.
That’s why I’d like to invite my fellow readers to join me on this third part of our journey through the Subspecies franchise as we look into Bloodlust and talk about how it remains a surprisingly satisfying finale to the original trilogy.
A Trilogy Planned on the Fly
Released only a year after Bloodstone found plenty of success in rental stores and mail-in VHS catalogues worldwide, 1994’s Bloodlust was produced at the same time as its predecessor in (mostly) the same locations and with the same team. This means that the movie benefited from all the same upgrades as Bloodstone, with the crew now being more experienced with the ins and outs of surviving a low-budget Romanian production and the cast really settling into their characters.
At this point, everything from location scouting to the makeup process had been streamlined, with Wayne Toth and Norman Cabrera, the main duo behind special effects, even switching out time-consuming prosthetics for latex gloves in order to speed up Anders Hove’s monstrous transformation. The titular “subspecies” demons were also once again relegated to a mere cameo appearance due to the laborious puppetry required to bring them to life.
The only real hiccup came from the fact that actress Denice Duff had replaced the first film’s Michelle (Laura Mae Tate) and was immediately expected to portray the character as both an innocent victim in part II and as a secondary villain in part III. According to behind-the-scenes interviews, the hectic production schedule that blended two different movies meant that Duff would often find herself having to alternate between two incredibly different versions of Michelle during the same shooting day – though it’s obvious that she’s having more fun with Bloodlust’s more traditionally vampiric version of her character.
In the finished film, we pick things up immediately where the previous entry left off as Rebecca (Melanie Shatner) is forced to leave her vampire sister Michelle (Duff) behind in the dungeons of Castle Vladislav due to the rising sun. This allows Mummy (Pamela Gordon) to use Michelle’s blood to revive the vicious Radu (Hove) so that he may continue his quest for the coveted Bloodstone – a magical artifact that perpetually drips the Blood of Saints.
Meanwhile, the dreamy US embassy agent Mel (Kevin Blair) agrees to help Rebecca plan a rescue mission, though they’re unaware that Radu has become infatuated with Michelle during his attempts to guide her growing bloodlust. This all culminates in a climactic confrontation meant to tie up all of the series’ loose ends in one of Full Moon Pictures’ most ambitious productions.
The Evolution of Radu
Like its predecessor, Bloodlust: Subspecies III was also warmly received by fans who argued that the series was an even bigger success than Full Moon’s other major horror franchise, Puppet Master. This praise wasn’t unanimous, however, as 1994 had seen the rise of a more modern breed of sexy vampire popularized by Anne Rice, with old-school Nosferatu like Radu being viewed as obsolete when compared to the likes of Lestat and Gary Oldman’s take on Dracula.
In a way, one might argue that Nicolaou’s film is something of a swan song for the classic vampire story, as Bloodlust combines all of the traditional elements we tend to associate with these tales into a single tragic yarn that ties a neat little bow on Radu’s story as well as the old-fashioned monster movies that he represents. The finale remains shocking despite the fact that this is the third time we see Radu get brutally killed onscreen, with the brief tease that he may one day return feeling more like a nod towards the nature of evil rather than sequel bait.
The film dabbles a bit in gothic romance and even explores the inherent power fantasy behind transforming into an immortal creature of the night, but the filmmakers never lose sight of Radu as a demonic force even when he’s willing to betray his beloved Mummy for Michelle’s sake. In fact, his twisted “love” for his fledgling makes him even creepier as we get the feeling that his passion comes from a dark and disturbing place.
Anders Hove is at his absolute best in this film, with the effects department boosting his moments of what the younger generation would call “aura farming” whenever Radu emerges from shadows like a 90s version of Count Orlok. There are even a couple of surprisingly effective jump-scares here, which is why I’d argue that Bloodlust cements Radu as one of the most memorable cinematic vampires of all time despite his humble origins.
Subspecies Saves Its Best For Last
Nicolaou and Vlad Panescu also saved the best for “last” (more on that in a bit) regarding the film’s visuals, with the cinematography and overall atmosphere of Bloodlust absolutely surpassing what we saw in the previous films. Everything feels appropriately climactic this time around (including the wonderful soundtrack that was co-composed alongside an authentic Romanian orchestra), and I appreciate how this is the fastest-paced entry in the trilogy since the film doesn’t need to waste time setting anything up.
Bloodlust still suffers from some of the same low-budget blemishes as its predecessors, but there’s so much creative passion here that no amount of wonky effects work or stilted dialogue can get in the way of appreciating the flick’s gothic grandeur. That’s why it’s not surprising that the movie’s definitive(-ish) ending would later be retconned as fans begged for more Radu.
Of course, the next entry in this series would be a different kind of vampiric endeavor altogether, with the filmmakers attempting to engage with the same trends that ultimately killed Radu and his antiquated kin. That, however, is a story for another time. For now, I’ll merely insist that Bloodlust: Subspecies III remains a highlight of Full Moon’s expansive catalogue and is definitely worth seeking out today.
You must be logged in to post a comment.