Slashers and Splatterpunks
Page 13
Desperate to keep his father's company alive, Bill Gaines was a man who would try anything once. "Educational Comics" became "Entertaining Comics," and Bill followed every major trend in the business. Western comics, romance comics, crime comics...but he was always one step behind, and EC's sales reflected that fact. Of the comics that EC was publishing at the end of the '40s, the crime titles sold the most copies. So Bill, together with his multi-talented collaborator, Al Feldstein, decided to try something totally revolutionary, and actually introduce a genre to the world of comics. That genre was horror, and Gaines and Feldstein took a few tales for a test drive in the crime comics. And to their shock, sales began to rise. They were offering something that no one else had...and readers ate it up. In 1950, EC traded in its crime comics for horror, and began publishing The Vault of Horror, The Haunt of Fear, and The Crypt of Terror...soon to be retitled Tales from the Crypt.
Soon, Tales from the Crypt was outselling everything in sight, with the exception of DC's Superman, and its sister publications weren't far behind. Which naturally led to a flood of horror comics from EC's competitors, hoping to cash in on EC's "New Trend." The imitators got the gore right, but lacked the artistry and wit of EC's highly successful line. Which, in turn, led to no small amount of jealousy from Gaines's fellow publishers. Gaines himself was, of course, delighted. Not only had he saved his father's company...he'd actually made it profitable. For the first time in his life, Gaines felt that he's done something his father could be proud of, even if he wouldn't necessarily approve of the material. Finally, Bill Gaines felt worthy of his father's legacy. So needless to say,
Slashers & Splatterpunks
when Frederic Wertham, with the weight of the U.S. Senate behind him, got EC's horror comics in his sights, Gaines was devastated...and very, very nervous. The only thing he could do was fight to protect them.
On April 12, 1954, William M. Gaines was sworn before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency. He would be the only publisher of comic books to testify...all of his rivals had demurred. He began by making an eloquent statement, saying among other things, "My father was proud of the comics he published, and I'm proud of the comics I publish." He also took full responsibility for horror comics. "I was the first publisher in these United States to publish horror comics," he said. "I'm responsible. I started them." He pleaded his case, pointing out that EC employed the best writers and the finest artists in the industry...a claim which many would back up today...and that they did everything they could to ensure that each page was a work of art. And he reached out with a plea for understanding.
"What are we afraid of?" he asked. "Are we afraid of our own children? Do we forget that they are citizens too, and entitled to the essential freedom to read? Or do we think our children so evil, so vicious, so single-minded, that it takes but a comic magazine story of murder to set them to murder...of robbery to set them to robbery?" He finished his prepared statement by concluding that "no one has ever been ruined by a comic. As has already been pointed out by previous testimony, no healthy, normal child has ever been made worse for the reading of comic magazines. I don't believe that anything that has ever been written can make a child hostile, over-aggressive or delinquent. The roots of such characteristics are much deeper. The truth is that delinquency is a product of the real environment in which a child lives, and not the fiction he reads."
From there, Gaines continued by pointing out the headlines
From there, Gaines continued by pointing out the headlines year-old youth who reads poetry, but not comic magazines, pleaded guilty to second degree murder. He helped poison the mother and father of a friend." He was quick to add "I'm not saying it's wrong...but when you attack comics, when you talk about banning them, as they do in some cities, you are only a step away from banning crime news in the newspapers. In America, we print our crime news. We don't think that crime news, or any news, should
Slashers & Splatterpunks
be banned because it is 'bad for the children.' Once you start to censor, you must censor everything." Gaines had done well, but the Subcommittee was unphased by his testimony. Senator Kefauver produced a copy of Crime Suspense Stories #22, and proceeded to grill Gaines about the cover, which depicted a man holding an axe and a severed head. Gaines, a lifelong dieter who curbed his appetite with diet pills, had walked into the Senate wired on Dexedrine. Now, as the questioning wore on, the speed wore off. Gaines slumped, he sweated, he stuttered as he attempted to defend himself against this blindside attack. When asked if he felt the cover was "in good taste," Gaines replied "Yes sir, I do...for the cover of a horror comic. A cover in bad taste, for example, might be defined as holding the head a little higher so that the neck could be seen to be dripping blood from it, and moving the body over a little further so that the neck of the body could be seen to be bloody." What he failed to mention was that Johnny Craig's original color illustration had shown blood dripping from the neck of the severed head, and that he had specifically asked that it be cropped. In the end, by trying to defend his work, he had simply made it all worse. Had there been a cross handy, Gaines would have been nailed up.
In their Interim Report, the Subcommittee described Gaines as a man "who publishes some of the most sadistic crime and horror comic books, with monstrosities that nature has been incapable of." Once again, Gaines felt that something needed to be done. If the U.S. Government began to censor comics, he would be out of business. He called a meeting of all the biggest comic book publishers in the industry, and suggested that they band together to face the threat united. The other publishers agreed, and at that meeting, formed the Comic Magazine Association of America. Their first official act was to ban the use of words like "horror," "terror," "weird," and "crime" and forbid "all scenes of horror, excessive bloodshed, gory or gruesome crimes, depravity, lust, sadism, and masochism" and give the boot to "walking dead, torture, vampires, ghouls, cannibalism, and werewolfism." Clearly, this was a specific attack on EC, made by rival publishers who had failed to compete with the company's hugely popular horror titles. "This isn't what I had in mind!" shouted Gaines, before stomping out of the meeting.
Gaines continued to publish his horror comics, and
Slashers & Splatterpunks
distributed them as he always had. But without the CMAA's seal of approval, the bundles were now being returned, often unopened, by retailers across the country. EC's reputation within the industry was shot. As author Digby Diehl would later put it, "In 1954, confessing that one drew horror comics for a living was only marginally more socially acceptable than confessing that one was a Communist or a full-time pornographer." After bringing his father's company back from the brink of bankruptcy, and building it into the most profitable independent comics publisher in the world, William Gaines was finally forced to admit defeat. On September 14, 1954, Gaines announced that all of his highly successful horror and crime titles were to be discontinued...and in March of 1955, the final issue of Tales from the Crypt was published. EC horror was officially dead.
So what has all this got to do with horror movies? A valid question, as horror cinema is the subject of this column. The answer to that is simple enough:
Everything.
Time marches on, and while the medium may be different, the controversy is the same old song. Ever since the 1980s, the target has been horror movies. Now, I know this has been addressed in the past, but as I said, it's time to get specific. The question now is: "Does 'imitatable' violence in horror films lead to acts of violence in real life?" My first inclination is to say that if you have to make up a fake word to describe it, how serious can the problem really be? But that might come across as a trifle glib or flippant. And while that's fun and all, it's not what I don't get paid for around here (to quote the Crypt Keeper, "heh heh").
In all seriousness, this is a question that deserves a serious answer. And from my point of view, that answer is an unequivocal "No." If, as some would have us believe, violence i
n horror films could lead sane, rational children down the path of wanton destruction, everyone reading this would no doubt be a committed sadist. The fact is, millions upon millions of people, all over the world, watch horror movies on a regular basis and don't use them as an excuse for violent behavior. And that's what it is. That's all it's ever been. An excuse. A convenient scapegoat for societies too uncomfortable with their own culpability to admit that real social problems may be to blame for some young people's proclivity to
Slashers & Splatterpunks
violence. Or as David Byrne once put it, "Violence on television only affects children whose parents act like television personalities."
Your Honor...in this trial to decide the fate of the Defendant, Horror Cinema, the Counsel for the Defense wishes to present its Exhibit A: Me.
I am a lifelong fan of horror cinema. I've been fascinated by it since the age of 8. I taught myself to read with a book about horror films, Your Honor. And I'm not ashamed. I've watched more horror films than you could probably imagine. Old, new, scifi/horror, horror comedy, splatter, slasher...Your Honor, I've seen it all. And I don't repent. I've enjoyed watching films that contain graphic depictions of horrifically violent acts, and I have no remorse. Because you see, I've never done anything to deliberately hurt another human being. Not once in my life. I'm the most nonviolent, the most vehemently anti-violent person you're ever likely to encounter outside of a Buddhist monastery. I'm anti-war, I'm anti-death penalty. I'm not asking you to share those views, Your Honor...but clearly, it demonstrates my frame of mind, does it not?
No film, however violent, however salacious, could ever drive me to murder...or even to assault. I do not imitate acts of violence that I see on the screen, Your Honor...nor have I in the past, nor would I ever. Because I am a sane and rational being, who understands the difference between entertainment and reality. And no such person can ever be driven to violence by a film. And certainly not a sane and rational child. Children are smarter than we give them credit for, Your Honor. Indeed, do we not hold them up as a bright and shining hope for the future? Why then should we treat them as fools? Or as time bombs, lying in wait for some piece of random data to trigger their detonators? If this is true, how can they be our hope for the future? And if they are our hope, then how can this be true?
And what of the viewer who is not rational? Can violence be "triggered," as so many claim, by the sight of on-screen violence? Perhaps...perhaps not. But if a person is so deranged as to be driven to murder by a mere film, Your Honor...does it not follow that such a person may be driven to murder by anything? Could it not be said that such a person might find inspiration in a TV news
Slashers & Splatterpunks
story? Or a magazine article? Within the works of William Shakespeare? Or even in the Bible? Certainly, if a case can be made against horror films, a similar case can be made against anything. And in the end, if these people are truly so disturbed, is that not the root cause of their actions? And where does their condition start? With movies? Or as with speech, walking and reading, does it not start in the home? Can filmmakers be held responsible for the effects of their work on previously unstable people? Should they be held responsible? Many seem to think so, Your Honor, but still I say "No."
If a person stabs their neighbor to death, should we punish the manufacturer who crafted the knife? Of course not. And why not? Because the knife was not intended for use as a murder weapon, and was not sold with that intent. The manufacturer is not responsible for the killer's actions...nor is the retailer who sold him the knife. They are not accessories to his crime...the law understands this. What makes a film any different? The only difference I can see, Your Honor, is that the film is not directly involved in the crime...while the knife is. Does that not indicate that a filmmaker, if anything, should be considered less culpable than the knife manufacturer? Why then do we sue filmmakers, Your Honor? In a society with problems this immense, with real causes in the real world, why are we wasting our effort, and abandoning all reason, to drag film directors into court and force them to defend their work? We waste so much valuable time debating this issue, when the real causes of violence are right in front of us...if only we have the courage to face our fears. Your Honor, the Defense rests.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury...what is your verdict?
See you in the obituaries.
Slashers & Splatterpunks
Film & Book Reviews Slashers & Splatterpunks
Hellraiser / 1987
Slashers & Splatterpunks
Hellraiser / 1987
Directed by Clive Barker
Cast: Ashley Lawrence, Claire Higgins, Doug Bradley, Simon Bamford, Andrew Robinson
*** There are certain expectations when dealing with a film titled 'Hellraiser'. For example, one would expect that hell will be involved, and, further, that someone or something will be raising that hell. In this respect, Clive Barker's horror legacy does not disappoint. However, now that Hellraiser has permeated popular culture, we have higher expectations to be met. We expect the makings of a classic, the iconic Pinhead instilling exquisite terror. In short, we expect a nightmare on celluloid. The film does not disappoint. It is a masterfully executed production, with a chilling story, great performances, and amazing special effects.
The story begins with Frank Cotton, purchasing himself a mysterious little puzzle box from a mysterious little fellow. He takes the box home, opens it, and is pulled off into a dimension of eternal sadomasochism ruled by strange creatures called Cenobites (―Demons to some. Angels to others.‖). We cut to Larry Cotton, Frank's brother, moving in to Frank's abandoned home with his second wife, Julia. An unfortunate moving accident cuts open Larry's hand. As the blood drips onto the floor where Frank was torn from this world, Frank is able to work his way back from the Cenobite dimension, albeit as a skinless monster, needing the blood of living reconstitute himself. He is helped in secret by Julia, who is seeking to rekindle an old affair. However, neither Larry's daughter, Kristy, nor the Cenobites, are pleased that Frank has returned.
The key to any good monster film, Hellraiser included, is having a solid, scary creature to get behind. Pinhead (Doug Bradley), originally credited as 'Lead Cenobite' has an almost gravelly poise, a low-voiced military leader with a calm yet destructive demeanor. It makes a wonderful change from the hands-on types such as Jason Voorhees or the wisecracks of Freddy Krueger. Pinhead and the other Cenobites are these bizarre, fetishistic creatures, unlike anything before seen in cinematic horror. Their skin pallid, warped in painful and unnatural ways, the Cenobites are as twisted in flesh as they are in mind. While the actors play their part, the true star
Slashers & Splatterpunks
here is the makeup. From the lumpy, grotesque features of 'Butterball' to the signature grid-face pattern of Pinhead, they are created with such frightening realistic features, almost as if you can see what was once human about them. However, they are now utterly something else.
While the history of this mystical puzzle box and the Cenobites isn't fully explored, we get enough glimpses at them to be drawn into this frightening yet intriguing world, where pain and pleasure are indiscernible. A simple story of a box that summons and unsummons these vile creatures would not be that intriguing, in and of itself. It's the elements of their world that pour onto and into ours, the vicious chains and flesh hooks, and the mysterious spinning obelisk. They are mysterious and mortifying. When Kirsty enters their world, albeit briefly, we are met with visions of a labyrinthine hell, occupied by ghastly, ravenous creatures. While all these element do not establish any sort of solid mythos or background, there is just enough to see the glimmering history behind this puzzlebox and the evil connected to it. It's not much, but it's enough.
Early in Hellraiser, there is one sequence that stands out for being absolutely beautiful in the strange, grotesque manner, characteristic of the film: Frank's return to the real world from the Cenobite dimension. It begins with a strange goo puddling up fr
om the floorboards that earlier absorbed Larry's spilled blood. The pools of goo grow until, suddenly, two limbs, too featureless and thin to possibly be human, erupt from the primordial soup. They bend in the middle, and slowly this ooze begins to bubble with flesh, blood, and bone. A barely-recognizable human form begins to reconstruct itself from the ether. Hellraiser, being from an era before CGI, was accomplished using all practical effects, which are executed with such precision that it is absolutely magical to behold. For that moment on film, it is easy to believe that this is some mystically messy resurrection unfolding on the screen. Bob Keen may have only received a Saturn Award nomination for his work, but he deserved far more. This initial sequence, the subsequent utterly realistic effects of skinless Frank, and the aforementioned Cenobites - it's all just flat out amazing.
While, earlier, I briefly touched on the actors behind the Cenobites, the real star of Hellraiser is Andrew Robinson. As Larry Cotton,
Slashers & Splatterpunks
Andrew brings a touch of believable compassion to the character. The soft, gentle way he interacts with his daughter, the utter panic when he accidentally cuts himself - it all adds up to this perfect, poor victimized fellow upon which the film hinges. While most of the other characters are active, driving forces, the ones killing and discovering, Larry is reacting in a way that the audience might. He is a man trying to keep his dysfunctional family together and happy. When twists at the end alter Larry's character a great deal (and for the sake of not spoiling this plot point, I shall remain vague), Andrew portrays that difference perfectly. You can see the subtle changes, right down to a slightly different tone of voice. It's a beautiful cherry on top of the sundae that is this film.