The Motherload



“Mother!”, reproduced with permission. Source: Wikimedia Commons

Female Physiology, Fraught Relationships, and Horror

Mums. You can’t live with them. You can’t live without them.

In her seminal work the Powers of Horror: an essay on abjection, Julie Kristeva defines abjection “a traumatic confrontation with an object that, though somehow familiar to the viewing subject, is envisioned as defiled due to its existence outside of the symbolic order”.

In the context of horror films this means: Children are scary. Toys are scary. Mothers are scary.

As many horror films do. I think it’s an often overlooked characteristic to the genre – particularly gothic – that the real horror comes from within.

Menstruation and childbirth are examples of life-giving, ‘salvation’, but also the literal breaching of the physical body. Horror is the perfect genre to explore this physical breach, in the literal and figurative senses. No horror does this as effectively as the Alien franchise. The article Queen Mother gives you the full blow-by-blow of how Alien has manifest feminist principles into its storytelling and exploitation of genre.

In an article for Bloody Disgusting, Meagan Navarro notes that “there are countless genre movies that explore the horrors of giving birth, of child-rearing, of maternal sacrifice, and simply how being a mother can affect one’s sanity.”

Outside the obvious riffs on pre-partum anxiety and grief in films like Prevenge and Baby blood, it’s the intimate and interminable pressure of films like Hereditary that make the conventions of horror story-telling so affecting when it comes to motherhood.

Hereditary Official Trailer. Reproduced with Permission. Source: Youtube.

In the case of Hereditary, the horror is matrilineal. A grandmother, then a mother, and her daughter, set in train a series of unfortunate events that culminate in the family’s demise. Not without unpacking the horrors of mental illness, responsibility, and motherhood on its way down.

Hereditary held up a mirror to our faces and forced us to look inward.

Julieann Stipidis, One Year of ‘Hereditary’: Its Personal Impact on Me and its Cultural Impact on the Horror Genre. Source: Bloody Disgusting.

According to Dorothea Lasky in the Paris Review, “Hereditary is really about the power of art-making… Their artwork is craft-based, works that have long been associated with female labor.”

And yet, despite its feminist agenda, to the untrained eye – Hereditary is just a really scary movie about women, and insane mothers, which could be perpetuating the Patriarchal ‘word’.

I recall a line in David Cronenberg’s iconic 1979 horror The Brood, where Juliana Kelly, played by Nuala Fitzgerald talks about the aspect of motherhood that wore her down – powerlessness in the face of your childrens’ imagination – “thirty seconds after you’re born you have a past, and sixty seconds after that you start to lie to yourself about it”.

David Cronenberg’s The Brood. Reproduced with Permission. Source: IMDB

The Brood is another tale of motherhood – a woman begins to reproduce murderous clones of her daughter, after years of physical and psychological abuse at the hands of her own mother.

Nola is literally monstrous – described as psychoplasmics’ “queen bee” –  her ability to give birth parthenogenetically makes her a literal manifestation of the monstrous feminine. Her monstrous children are atavistic: intergenerational trauma passed down and repeating itself, “they’re the children of her rage”.

Nola in the Brood falls into one of several motherhood tropes that recur in horror cinema the shrew who births an evil antagonist – see the likes of cinema greats such as Psycho (1960), and Carrie (1976). The other being the shrieking victim, incapacitated by fear. Leila Latif, in her article Mommie Dearest identified the absent mother as another trope in ‘mayhem ensues’ films like Wes Craven’s A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984).

It’s wonderful that modern films such as Hereditary, A Quiet Place, The Babadook – critically successful or not – are giving horror fans, particularly female ones, the opportunity to writhe in psychic pain, and provoke conversations at the same time.

Standard

My Problematic Relationship With True Crime

Copyright: Sheila Sund. Used with Permission. Source: FLICKR

Why are we obsessed with true crime? Or more to the point, why am I obsessed with true crime. It’s awful. It’s god awful. Yet in the last 12-months I have spent more time listening to Karen and Georgia from My Favourite Murder than I have speaking to my own mother.

I’m not alone – I know from the fact that when I listen to the live episodes I can hear what seems to be 10,000 other people in the audience wildly cheering – screaming for blood. But according to Global News “since the birth of NPR’s wildly popular 2014 podcast Serial, the way people view true crime has changed.”

My Favourite Murder Episode 176. Copyright: the Exactly Right Podcast Network. Source: Spotify.

In the aptly named, and extremely relevant article, by the ABC Why Women Love True Crime Podcasts’ I discovered that women such as myself are almost solely responsible for the upswing in crime-related bullshit available for mass consumption. I can only imagine why. Given that the heinous crimes perpetrated against women in Melbourne alone since the beginning of the year keep smacking headlong into the media turnpike.

A 2010 study found that women are more likely to be fans of true crime than men.  Is it empowering? does being informed make you safer? For me listening to true crime is a weird sort of self defence; like learning not to run upstairs when your house is on fire.

I tend to agree with Jo Thornley, host of cult podcast Zealot, that part of why women are more likely to consume true crime, is that it forms a (somewhat) effective way to process everyday misogyny, or as Thornley puts it: “There’s so much horror everywhere; turning some of it into stories helps us deal with it.”

There’s an ethical dilemma, though, which I’ve lost sleep over. Consuming true-crime content as entertainment leaves the door wide open for criticism: like glorifying the deeds of sick men, mythologising mental illness, denigrating the memory of someone who lost their life. Whose story do you have a right to tell? Whose story should be told, but got skipped?

There was an insightful article on this topic in The Vulture by Alice Bolin, who delineated crime content into high and low brow.

“I’ve been thinking a lot about these gaps between high and low, since there are people who consume all murder content indiscriminately, and another subset who only allow themselves to enjoy the “smart” kind. The difference between highbrow and lowbrow in the new true crime is often purely aesthetic[…] But for these so-called prestige true-crime offerings, the question of ethics — of the potential to interfere in real criminal cases and real people’s lives — is even more important, precisely because they are taken seriously. “

Alice Bolin, The Ethical Dilemma of High Brow True Crime (2018)


As a voyeur, you are granted the shot of adrenalin that comes with the carnage, but are also made dispassionate – safe in the confines of your living room – the victim becomes dehumanised.

Like most good things, though, true crime is bad for you.
Associated Professor of Sociology at the University of Toronto answers the question; what impact does true crime have on your body if you listen to it regularly? “Everybody is different,” Lee explained. “Any time you’re exposing yourself to extreme violence, you always run the risk of potentially traumatising yourself. People have to be aware of that, and listen to their body’s reactions to these kinds of series.”

Then there’s desensitisation… A few nights ago my partner climbed into bed only to find me snoring away while the story of a woman having her arms and legs severed played dolefully in the background. A grisly lullaby.

On one hand being educated means being aware, whether it’s not letting your drink leave your sight at a party, or not accepting lifts home with strangers. But on the other hand, these harrowing stories leave you cold to the acts of everyday violence – usually less glamorous – that are no less traumatising.

Standard

Internet! Horror Themes! Blasphemes!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeremybrooks/4059116681
Copyright: Jeremy Brooks (2009). Used with Permission. Source: FLICKR.

I sat down with horror cinema expert and creator of podcast The Sixth Dimension Sebastian Mittelman to talk about horror films and the internet, and why they fit together so well. Because, honestly, is anything scarier than the internet?

The Trapdoor Podcast | Episode 1 feat. Sebastian Mittelman. Source: Soundcloud.

You can listen to a teaser of our conversation here, or download the full discussion on The Sixth Dimension.

For your pleasure, you can read the teaser transcript below.


M: Hi, thanks for tuning in to the Trapdoor Podcast. My name is Mireille Stahle, and I’m here with Sebastian Mitellman – cinema genius and twisted mind behind the podcast, the Sixth Dimension. Just a trigger warning, we’ll be discussing suicide, horror themes, and there will be some blasphemies. Enjoy.

M: Do you keep up to date with all the tripe on Netflix?

S: Uh, yes, yes, I do

M: So did you have the misfortune of watching Bird Box?

S: Yes I did, yes. I didn’t enjoy it at all. Um, I was going to turn it off, but I thought I’d give it a chance.

M: Good. ‘Cos really what I want this podcast to be about is just how unfortunate Bird Box was. If only for the fact that I read more than one review saying how original the idea was. And I just found that so laughable, considering how many Japanese cult films there have been about uncontrollable suicidal tendencies, and why on earth the American director, um, Bier-

S: Susan Bier, I think she’s Danish-

M: Danish ­– pardon me.

S: Yeah. But it’s based on a book. So, it’s not entirely her fault.

M: No! No, no. But, um, I just felt I’d seen it a million times before

S: Yeah, and you’re right, not just Japanese films, but films… mainly Japanese films. Suicide club is definitely the first one that springs to mind, ‘cos it’s got suicide in the title. [I’m] Trying to think of others – Pulse is another one, isn’t it.

M: Yep. Well, Pulse is kind of a similar premise, um, and does end up also being apocalyptic.

S:  Yeah, CGI shots of Japan and stuff like that, and, other cities isn’t there? But I like the idea of Pulse, where somehow the Internet coincides with the land of the dead, like another dimension.

M: Mmm [affirmative]

S: It’s almost Lovecraft-ian.

M: For me Pulse was a bit more metaphorical. Um, if you look at the way that the possessed – [mumbles] not possessed – but the figures in the videos walk around – there’s nothing really scary about it. In the sense that, the atmosphere is incredibly sinister-

S: Yeah.

M: -but they’re just moving around in a really banal and tedious way within the technology. So I thought it was more of a comment on people’s lack of connection – the internet facilitating but also taking away.

S: Yeah, that’s a pretty good, it’s pretty prescient as well the film. I came up with what I called ‘techno fear’ – a list of a couple of hundred items-

M: -aw you’re too good – it was the techno fear rather than suicide as a theme that I was more interested in, but-

S: Yeah, sure.

M: Um, suicide was the thing that drew me into it I suppose. Bird Box made me think about it, and then I started investigating those earlier films. And there was this technological undercurrent really, even in Suicide circle, there’s the weirdness in the band, Dessert, and they’re singing about the internet, they’re singing about sending an email.

S: Is this at the beginning of the movie when they jump into the tracks?

M: Yeah, yeah yeah. And it recurs a few times.

S: As early as I can remember, from what I understand, like, the internet was created around 1984-1985. And what the internet refers to is network of computers that essentially share information.

M: Mmm [affirmative]              

S: I’m surprised nobody has made a horror film to do with the ‘cloud’ yet.

M: I know!

S: In 2006 there was a book called ‘The Cell’ by Stephen King

M: Yes, I remember that.

S: -and he didn’t use it very well. Back then we had this idea that computers could talk to one-another – It’s like we misinterpreted it. And then in the early 80s there was a bunch of horror movies, and even in the late 70s, of like the- the nature of what computers can do.

M: Mmm [affirmative]

S: -being misrepresented grotesquely. I think one of the first is a film called Evil Seed in 1983, where using a computer, a boy sells his soul to the devil.

M: which fits very well into the fear of the internet and computers in general, of originally being a kind of devilish tool-

S: Mmm [affirmative]

M: Right? people were really afraid of the internet. Right-rightfully so!

S: It was mysterious in the same way that reading was mysterious to people who could rea- the aristocrats could read back in the 11th century.

M: -and if all I knew was the bible, then I would probably think that something that I didn’t understand was the devil.

S: Exactly! And you couldn’t even read the bible-

M: True.

S: -you’d have it told to you. That’s what- that’s why priests were invented.

M: [Laughing]

S: No, seriously! That’s why they were invented!

M: Sorry-

S: ‘Cos all this religious stuff was invented [crosstalk]

M: It’s the word invented that made me laugh. They were invented, Seb, you’re right.

The full conversation is available via The Sixth Dimension from wherever you get your podcasts.

Standard

The Magic Formula: have algorithms killed horror cinema?

Human Centipede themed Necklace. Owner retains copyright. Source: Flickr.

This is a handful of the Merriam Webster Dictionary’s definitions for ‘formula’:

  • A recipe
  • A set form of words for use in a ceremony or ritual
  • A general fact, rule, or principle expressed in usually mathematical symbols

Apparently there’s a formula for the kind of films that I like. I myself am a competitive-baking-meets-gore-meets-nostalgia alt-genre kinda gal, and that’s why on any given day my recommendations list will include both Nailed It! and Saw I through III.

What the dictionary doesn’t mention is that formulas make for very boring movies. Even if they’re a ‘recipe’ for success. In Algorithms to Live By, Brian Christian and Tom Griffiths describe the current cinema landscape/ Netflix-world-domination according to the Explore|Exploit algorithm.

It’s a trade-off that we’re constantly making: go with what you know with an outcome you can predict (Exploit), or take a chance on something which might blow up in your face? (Explore).

Whether the onset of media giants like Netflix have disrupted , or industry profits are winding down Hollywood have given up on Exploration and are now deeply embroiled in the Exploitation phase.

Hollywood have given up on Exploration, and are now deeply embroiled in the Exploitation phase.

If you need any evidence on how this has played out IRL look no farther than <insert any marvel movie ever> (and check out this video of a man in a cape complaining about it)

Algorithmics: A video about how Netflix’s algorithms work. Copyright NBC. Source: Youtube.

But Netflix hasn’t proven to be particularly brave either. Although they’re doing their research differently – they’re applying the same principle.

Maybe this is why Netflix are cancelling shows more than ever. RIP One Day At A Time.

We’ve made the very difficult decision not to renew One Day At A Time for a fourth season. The choice did not come easily — we spent several weeks trying to find a way to make another season work but in the end simply not enough people watched to justify another season.— Netflix US (@netflix) March 14, 2019

Apparently it only takes three episodes to work out if someone is addicted to a Netflix show. And if over 70% of people who start it go on to finish it, it gets another season. Sounds formulaic…

What the dictionary doesn’t mention is that formulas make for very boring movies. Even if they’re a ‘recipe’ for success.

Algorithmic bots give answers to impossible questions. We don’t really know about how they work, because their function is essentially a trade secret.

But what we do know is more data means better bots, and better bots mean that technology companies like Netflix can not only feed you the content they know you to like, but they can create the content before we even know we want it.

So in a nut shell, how do they work?

  1. Establish a goal: in this case, the goal is for users to stay engaged (watch) for long as possible
  2. A little bot measures how long a person stays on the site
  3. The bot does it’s best to pick videos that keep you on the site
  4. The longer you view, the better they score in their test
  5. Make the best performing bot the king-pin, recycle the rest.

Make the best performing bot the king, recycle the rest. It’s a bit Darwinian, isn’t it?

So are they writing the stories with bots now? It certainly seems that way.

There’s not a C-grade horror film on Netflix that I haven’t watched, so naturally I flicked on Mercy Black when it premiered in March.  is scarcely indistinguishable from it’s forgettable forebears — Slenderman, Paranormal Activity III, The Toothfairy

You can read a misleadingly glowing review by Heaven of Horror.  Honestly it was a stinker, and it feels that a lot of the ‘Netflix Original’ content has the same offensive odour.

Promotional still from Mercy Black (2019). Copyright Netflix US. Source.

Why? I suspect it’s because Netflix’s bots are telling them what movies to make, based on our watching behavior. People like me, and my awful, strange watching behavior. A bit like a Hallmark card with a puppy wearing a sombrero. Executives are rubbing their hands together and saying “It’s time for SON of Aqua Man!”  

What you want might not be what you need

We are increasingly in a position where instead of using tools, we are used by our tools. The risk of course is that when everything you see is curated, serendipitous discoveries become almost impossible. Are robots now the only way to keep up with the demand for content? Let’s bloody hope not.

Standard