Connect with us

Editorials

Fiction and Documentary Collide in ‘Fake Blood’ [Maple Syrup Massacre]

Published

on

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…

Fake Blood is a delicious curiousity: it’s a documentary about director Rob Grant and his frequent collaborator Mike Kovac, who also co-writes, exploring their responsibility in depicting cinematic violence.

Or at least that’s how it starts.

Over time the film slowly morphs into something different. As the two men embark on a mission to “experience” the kinds of violence depicted in their low budget films, they slowly become immersed in a narrative of their own making involving a “real-life” murderer named “John.”

Grant is well known in indie horror circles. In addition to directing under-the-radar gem Harpoon, he’s the editor of films like Knuckleball (directed by Fake Blood’s other co-writer, Michael Peterson) and this year’s Influencer.

In the film, Rob and Mike play themselves: a Vancouver filmmaker and actor, who are shaken up when they receive a video from a fan detailing how to dismember a body. The pair begin to question how violence is depicted not just in their films, but other horror and crime films. There’s even a montage of real life crimes that were allegedly inspired by films such as Scream, Child’s Play 3, Natural Born Killers, and A Clockwork Orange.

In order to assess how real life violence fares compared to cinematic violence, the guys make a laundry list: they start at the gun range where they shoot a variety of weapons before moving onto the dojo where Rob gets in a real fight (that last sixty seconds). The take-away: real life violence is much more brutal, rough, and less fantastical than it is on screen.

It’s when Rob tracks down a film consultant who may have ties to organized crime that Fake Blood begins to slip into fictional territory. A clandestine meeting with John in a parking garage involves blurring the man’s face and distorting his voice. Following the interview, Rob and Mike investigate the mystery man’s actual identity, then move on to reviewing his court transcripts, and seek out the brother of his murder victim. Throughout this process, Mike and Rob grow apart as the goal of the project becomes distorted and their lives (and the lives of those they love) become increasingly impacted by their decisions.

Many of the events, particularly those in the back half of the film, did not actually happen. The two films that Rob and Mike discuss at the start of Fake Blood – zombie film Yesterday (2009) and kidnapping-gone-wrong crime film Mon Ami (2012) – are, however, real films the pair worked on. Ditto the fan video that acts as an inciting incident; in press for the film, they admit the real life video is what prompted them to make the film.

The line between reality, improvised/sketch documentary, and fiction is not always so easy to distinguish, though. Take, for example, the re-enactments that are integrated into the film. Filmed in a stylized format that will be familiar to anyone who has watched true crime, these sequences act as transitions between the “truth” of the original project and the more sensational (read: fictional) back half.

As Rob and Mike learn more about the lurid details of John’s crimes, they are recreated using actors Len Harvey (playing John), Chelsey Reist (playing the murder victim), and Theo Francon (playing Phil Cotton, John’s accomplice). Following each re-enactment, there’s a moment of cognitive dissonance as Fake Blood switches from the soft melodrama back to the “real world.” Often this is accompanied by Rob yelling cut on the set of the re-enactment before the real life actors are interviewed about their opinions on cinematic violence.

Like a documentary, most of the film was shot without a specific narrative in mind and the story was discovered in the editing room. It’s clear that certain sections were more scripted than others, while some were improvised, and still others were captured naturally. At one point Rob even conflates the word “film” with “the doc” they’re making before shaking his head, wondering “Whatever we’re calling this.”

Aside from the “Canadian-ness” of the actors and the locations (the film was primarily shot in Vancouver, BC with a ferry detour to Langford on Vancouver Island), the focus on something other than gun violence feels particularly Canadian. In 2017, the year that Fake Blood was released, there were 23 mass shootings in the United States. The same year in Canada, there were six. But those numbers are barely comparable: the 2017 Las Vegas shooting killed 60 people alone , which is four times the cumulative total of all of Canada’s 2017 shooting deaths (15).

In some ways, this makes Fake Blood feel more empathetic: in spite of the gradual shift into fictional storytelling, its clear that Mike and Rob are truly interested in exploring their role in contributing to sensational media. The discourse is peppered throughout the film, with Reist lamenting the focus on violence over storytelling, while Mike initially proposes their main responsibility is to entertain audiences, not be realistic.

One of Fake Blood‘s buzziest moments occurs late in the film when Harvey explains his issues with romantic comedies. The suggestion that everyone will inevitably discover love detrimentally affected Harvey’s self-worth and altered his real life perception of romance in ways that he believes are far more damaging than onscreen violence.

It’s an interesting point, and one not often discussed (in part because broken hearted people rarely vent their feelings using bullets, knives or other weapons), but the point remains: people tend to focus on crime and horror films when looking for a scapegoat. While Fake Blood unabashedly acknowledges that there are consequences to creatives’ actions, however, it does not put the blame for real life violence on violent media.

By the end of the film, when the relationship between Rob and Mike has been (fictitiously) fractured, the consequences are clear. For the audience, it’s a bit more nebulous: Fake Blood is so absorbing and compelling, particularly in its construction, it’s easy to lose sight of the message because Fake Blood is just a damn good film.

Or doc.

Or whatever you want to call it.

4 out of 5 skulls

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