Connect with us

Editorials

Exploiting the Canadian Tax Shelter for ‘Death Weekend’ [Maple Syrup Massacre]

Published

on

Death Weekend

Maple Syrup Massacre is an editorial series where Joe Lipsett dissects the themes, conventions and contributions of new and classic Canadian horror films. Spoilers follow…

William Fruet is one of Canada’s most important directors. He’s renowned for not only his contributions to ‘realist social dramas’ such as 1970’s Goin’ Down The Road (one of Canada’s first English language fiction feature films) and 1972’s Wedding in White, but also for his Canuxploitation films of the 70s.

Death Weekend – or The House by the Lake as it was known in the United States – was made in 1976 in an effort to capitalize on a unique Canadian funding model at the time.

As previously explored in this editorial series, as well as my David Cronenberg podcast Sexy & Surreal, Canadian films are funded by the public via governmental organizations. In the 1970s, the government created the Canadian Film Development Council (CFDC) in an effort to spur the creation of more fiction feature films (as opposed to documentaries, which had until that time been the dominant mode of filmmaking in Canada).

This led to what has become known as the Tax Shelter Era of the late-70s through the 80s, when a ludicrously generous 100% capital cost allowance (CCA) write-off on all Canadian film investment was allowed and the CCA became the carrot used to lure Americans to invest in  Canadian films. Many of the films produced during the Tax Shelter Era were genre films due to the low production cost, high return on investment, and ease of sale to foreign markets (ie: back to the US) although there were few, if any, “quality control” mechanisms in place to ensure the resulting films were commercial or even watchable.

This meant that many terrible films were made, as well as several classics. In fact, it was during this period that Cronenberg established himself via his early body horror films, and a number of low-budget slasher films such as Prom Night, Happy Birthday to Me, Terror Train and My Bloody Valentine were made in Toronto, Montreal, and the Maritimes.

Canadian filmmakers like William Fruet saw the writing on the wall. After scraping and begging to secure the $250K budget for his realist period drama Wedding in White, Fruet turned to horror/exploitation to make a quick buck with his next project, Death Weekend.

Much like Shivers, the film stirred up a great deal of controversy. The Canadian public was already up in arms about public funds being used to fund David Cronenberg’s Shivers the year before; that film was famously used in a Canadian Parliamentary debate about the perceived worth of genre fare. (Canadians are wild, y’all).

Both Death Weekend and Shivers hail from Cinépix Film Properties, a Montreal-based producer known for their so-called “maple syrup porn” aka French Canadian softcore porn films (FYI: this is where this editorial series gets its name!).

Death Weekend Canada

Fruet’s film follows Harry (Chuck Shamata) a wealthy, entitled dentist who takes a rotating roster of female lovers to his massive lake house property each weekend throughout the summer. When the film opens, it’s Diane (Brenda Vaccaro)’s turn, though almost immediately the fashion model distinguishes herself from Harry’s usual conquest through her love of fast cars and fixing motors (and later, dispatching murderers and rapists).

All of these skills come in handy when she and Harry run afoul of four local thugs after Diane humiliates leader Lep (Don Stroud) with her high-speed driving abilities. This leads Lep, as well as spectacled Runt (Richard Ayres), long-haired Frankie (Kyle Edwards) and Stanley (Don Granberry) to seek Diane and Harry out and terrorize them for the rest of the film.

Based partially on a real-life experience Fruet had while driving in Alberta, as well as Sam Peckinpah’s recently released Straw Dogs, Death Weekend bears all of the familiar narrative and stylistic conventions of home invasion, “hillbilly horror,” and rape revenge films. As Bloody’s Paul Le explains in his own editorial, Death Weekend was unfavourably compared to both Straw Dogs and The Last House of the Left, and it was eventually packaged by the film’s producer Ivan Reitman (Ghostbusters, Porky’s) on a drive-in double bill with I Spit on Your Grave in the US.

Death Weekend movie

Ironically the film was derided by Canadian critics for its crass commercialization and its perceived lack of Canadian themes. This despite the fact that the film features no less than two characters – Harry and Lep – who closely adhere to what Canuxploitation founder Paul Corupe identifies as a trend of “marginalized, ineffective male characters whose insecurity…leads them to a tragic end.” Corupe lists multiple examples from Canadian films of the time, including Fruet’s own Goin’ Down The Road, as well as The Rowdyman (1972) and Paperback Hero (1973), that employ the same archetypes and narrative arcs.

Fruet’s film “also touches on related issues of class and urbanism, highlighting the dis-parity between rich, ‘sophisticated’ city dwellers and the crude rural inhabitants” (Corupe, 101). There’s the backwater seediness of the villains, as well as the ‘stupid hillbilly’ depiction of a pair of drunkard garage employees who are drowned in a lake. Lastly, in yet another example of a Canadian slasher precursor (see: 1974’s Black Christmas) Diane adheres to the characteristics of an early Final Girl who must defend herself when Harry is first emasculated, then murdered by Lep and his flunkies.

All in all, William Fruet’s Death Weekend is an intriguing addition to the Canuxploitation canon of the late 70s and 80s. While it’s not an easy watch, it is another worthwhile example of Canada’s genre output during the heyday of the Tax Shelter Era.


References:

Paul Corupe. “Who’s in the Driver’s Seat: The Canadian Brute Unleashed in Death Weekend.” The Canadian Horror Film: Terror of the Soul, 2015 (eds: Gina Freitag and Andre Loiselle)

Joe is a TV addict with a background in Film Studies. He co-created TV/Film Fest blog QueerHorrorMovies and writes for Bloody Disgusting, Anatomy of a Scream, That Shelf, The Spool and Grim Magazine. He enjoys graphic novels, dark beer and plays multiple sports (adequately, never exceptionally). While he loves all horror, if given a choice, Joe always opts for slashers and creature features.

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