Connect with us

Published

on

Based on V. C. Andrews’ 1979 novel of the same name, Jeffrey Bloom’s Flowers in the Attic is a little better than some critics suggest. That’s not to say you’ll love it, but let me go through a few details here and make a light defense of the film. To begin with, plenty of horror fans will come forward and suggest it’s not a horror film. While I understand the sentiment, my initial response is usually, “Who cares?” However, I do think there are plenty of horror elements here. In fact, it doesn’t hurt that Wes Craven was originally considered to direct it. Obviously, if you’ve read the title, I think this movie has themes similar to those found in The People Under the Stairs, and I’ll elaborate more on that in a bit.

The second predictable critique of Flowers in the Attic will be of the acting. Yet again, I understand the criticism. Victoria Tennant, Kristy Swanson, and Jeb Stuart Adams don’t offer the most commanding performances committed to film. However, let’s not forget about Louise Fletcher, who definitely takes control of this film, giving a performance similar to what she accomplished in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. As you watch, you may be enraged by her, as she puts everyone through hell due to sins of the past.

The result should make us ask: Should one’s perceived morality justify unrelenting cruelty? Might that urge exist beforehand, with the sadistic impulse requiring righteous justification? In fact, could it be that justification itself adds to the depravity of our actions, by masking punishment as a virtue? All of these disturbing (and, let’s face it, semi-kinky) questions unfold in Flowers in the Attic.

A Strange Tale

So, what specifically happens in this story? (Obviously, one might wish to avoid reading further if they don’t want any kinds of “spoilers.”) After the death of her husband (Marshall Colt), Tennant’s character, Corrine, moves into the mansion of her estranged father, Malcolm (Nathan Davis). She hopes her father will forgive her, then rewrite his will to hand over his estate after his death. However, Corrine’s mother, played by Fletcher, is perpetually going to punish Corrine and her children, Chris (Adams) and Cathy (Swanson) and 5-year-old twins Cory (Ben Ganger) and Carrie (Lindsay Parker).

Advertisement

Basically, these kids are, well, “kidnapped” for years by their grandmother’s estate as their mom tries to gain her father’s love (and fortune). At the same time, they are all ostensibly waiting for his funeral to escape the grandmother’s sadism. The siblings are imprisoned, only getting a sense of freedom when she’s out. Things get desperate when their mother gradually abandons them, with no plans to sneak the children out of the house. Basically, her greed ends up trumping their need.

Symbolism and the Comparison You Came Here For

Aside from flowers and an attic, Flowers in the Attic has some symbolism built into the plot. Obviously, these children live where their mother lives, yet they might as well be separated by thousands and thousands of miles. They first arrive in town as strangers to their grandmother, even though they’re related. It’s not like they have no place to stay, but end up feeling like they’d be better off lost. These are all themes of abandonment. Also, even though their grandmother considers herself well-raised and moralistic, she’s no better than the proverbial slob raised in a barn.

Again, people sometimes question if this is horror, but some of these family members are no better than deranged killers. In fact, considering that Wes Craven was considered to direct, I can’t help but wonder if this story partly influenced Craven’s later film, The People Under the Stairs. Both feature characters too psychologically damaged to defend themselves against their wealthy captors. Noticeably, they are basically disarmed (none of the victims carry a gun). Both stories feature perverted mother and father roles.

Then, of course, you have imagery like the attic door or, in The People Under the Stairs, kidnapped children locked away in a basement. In Flowers in the Attic, when the kids see their grandfather for the first time, it’s not like the old man simply refuses to accept them — he attacks them and seems like a monster.

Really, the main difference is that, in Flowers, the grandmother has hired some henchmen who prevent the kids from escaping. In People, the Mommy (Wendy Robie) and Daddy (Everett McGill) characters compel kids (Brandon Adams, A. J. Langer) into hiding, too. As perhaps the ultimate thematic crossover, kids also end up spying through walls in Flowers in the Attic. Though it lacks the bloody scenes prominent in The People Under the Stairs, the adults in Flowers in the Attic seem perfectly capable of burying young bodies in the woods.

Advertisement

One Last Bit of Trivia

The final scene of Flowers was filmed at Greystone Mansion in Beverly Hills, California. The 2007 film There Will Be Blood also filmed parts at Greystone Mansion, as well as films like Austin Powers in Goldmember, The Big Lebowski, Cabin Boy, Death Becomes Her, Eraserhead, Ghostbusters II, The Golden Child, The Muppets (film) (Kermit’s mansion), Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man franchise, Stripes, and The Witches of Eastwick. Also, soap operas like The Young and the Restless and The Bold and the Beautiful have used the location, and even the music video to “I’d Do Anything for Love (But I Won’t Do That)” by Meatloaf features Greystone.

What are your thoughts on Flowers in the Attic? Is it similar at all to The People Under the Stairs or does this idea belong locked away in a basement or attic?

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movies n TV

Suburban Screams, Cursed Neighborhood

Published

on

Episode five of John Carpenter’s Suburban Screams was one of the best kind of horror stories. It is a dark, eerie tale of a mean house that is determined to destroy anyone who dares reside within it.

The story

Our story begins in 1682. A group of colonists are attempting to take over land that is very much not theirs. When the colonists are killed, they vow to curse the land.

Fast forward to modern times, and the land in question is a little suburban neighborhood. Carlette Norwood moves in with her husband, mother, and daughters. The house seems like a dream come true. Until, of course, their beautiful dream home becomes a nightmare. The curse of the colonists wrapped itself around the neck of each family member, turning them into people that they didn’t recognize. People who don’t exactly like each other.

What worked

While I wouldn’t say that the acting in this episode is flawless, it was several steps above what we’ve seen so far. Every actor seemed to understand their role and reacted in realistic ways. I was especially impressed by the young woman playing Angelique. She had the good sense to not overplay the role, giving each scene exactly the right amount of energy.

Advertisement

Of course, there was one actress who way overplayed every scene. But rather than being terrible, it was terrific. And that was Chloe Zeitounian, who played the neighbor Stacy. Stacy the neighbor was creepy as shit. After an unnamed neighbor dies by suicide, Stacy shows up at Carlette’s house with a bottle of champagne, sipping coffee with a big old smile. Well, okay it probably wasn’t coffee.

Stacy was a fantastic character, and I hope there was a crazy neighbor just like her. I bet her house was haunted as hell, but she just decided that her ghost was like a stray dog that everyone else thinks is dangerous. She probably put a bejeweled collar on the colonist ghost and renamed him Kori spelled with an I on purpose.

Finally, I want to talk about the theme of ancestral curse and ancestral protections that this episode discussed.

Charles County was cursed by the colonists who took the land that rightfully belonged to the indigenous tribes. They took what their ancestors had given them, and left a curse in their wake.

At the end of the episode, Carlette talks about being protected by her ancestors. Ancestors that survived horrible things most of us can’t imagine. I am sure that their strength blessed Carlette, and helped her to save Angelique.

Advertisement

What didn’t work

While this episode was certainly better than most of the season, it wasn’t perfect. The thing that most stood out to me as being frankly unneeded was the inclusion of maggots attacking Brian.

Paul A Maynard in Suburban Screams.

In multiple scenes, during which Carlette is narrating, Brian has maggots coming out of open wounds. Never once does Carlette mention a maggot issue.

It feels like there is a clear reason why the creators did this. This story doesn’t have a lot of blood, gore, or jump scares. And a core goal of horror content is to cause a reaction.

Stephen King has a great quote about this goal. “I recognize terror as the finest emotion and so I will try to terrorize the reader. But if I find that I cannot terrify, I will try to horrify, and if I find that I cannot horrify, I’ll go for the gross-out. I’m not proud.”

The inclusion of maggots in this story admits that someone involved didn’t think the story was terrorizing or horrifying enough. But it was. The story was freaky all on its own without the inclusion of our wriggling friends.

Is it true?

This might be an unpopular opinion, but aside from the completely unnecessary maggots infesting Brian, I think this episode is the most honest and accurate one so far.

Advertisement

The thing about hauntings is that they’re seldom what we see in the movies. Haunted houses don’t have glass vases flying off shelves and wallpaper peeling to reveal 666 painted in blood over arcane symbols. Haunted houses dig into the minds of those who live there, causing bad luck and bad vibes. And that’s exactly what happened here. There are no massive explosions. No spirits throwing people downstairs or demonic dogs chasing children from the attic. This house dug into the hearts and minds of a loving family, ripping them apart.

So yes, I do think this episode is likely true.

The further we get into Suburban Screams, the more I enjoy it. This episode was eerie, upsetting, and riveting. I hope that Carlette and her daughters are healing from this horrific journey. And I’m thankful to them for sharing their story. 4.5 out of 5 stars (4.5 / 5)

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movies n TV

Happy Father’s Day Herman Munster!

Published

on

Herman Munster would be so proud, collage by Jennifer Weigel
Herman Munster would be so proud, collage by Jennifer Weigel

Today for Father’s Day I want to celebrate one the best dads in horror ever: Herman Munster! Herman Munster of television celebrity is a perfect example of a good father in a genre awash in epically horrible parents. He is fun to be around, cares deeply about family, and has a huge heart. He is essentially the naive and loving Frankenstein’s monster despite his horrific appearance, and is aptly employed at a funeral home.

Herman is lovable, hardworking, and always ready with the physical humor dad jokes, even if he is too naive to catch on to his role in the punchlines all the time. He is devoted to his wife Lily Dracula and son Eddie and will do whatever he can to protect them. His generosity extends beyond just his own, with the family taking in his niece Marilyn (who is painfully normal by comparison to the Munsters), and father-in-law Grandpa.

Portrayed by Fred Gwynne, Herman Munster is kind of the epitome of the good father in horror. Sure, he’s a brute, and can be a little dim sometimes, but he’s really just a big teddy bear at heart, and always ready for a good laugh. And apparently Herman Munster was even nominated by his son Eddie for Father of the Year in Season 2, Episode 25, so it all comes around full circle. If the show highlight doesn’t load, you can find it here.

And to celebrate more great Hollywood celebrities, here’s a poem for Ed Wood and an homage to Theda Bara

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movies n TV

Suburban Screams, The Bunny Man

Published

on

Someone is stalking the children of Fairfax, Virginia. He comes bearing an axe. He comes from the forest. He comes in the night.

He comes dressed as a bunny.

The story

In the 1970s, the sleepy town of Fairfax Virginia was menaced by a man dressed as a rabbit. He stalked kids and teens with an axe while they were playing in the woods, or ‘parking’. Children were cautioned to not play outside after dark. Parents were terrified. The whole community was rocked by the horrific killer who, well, didn’t kill anybody. And who might have been a whole bunch of people inspired by a truly sad tale?

Still from Suburban Screams The Bunny Man.

The story begins a hundred years earlier. A man whose name is lost to time is accused of stealing a cow. For this crime, he’s sentenced to death because things were a lot tougher back then. The man escaped but swore vengeance on the town. A few days later several children were found hanging from a bridge underpass, butchered and hung as though they were slaughtered rabbits.

What worked

The biggest thing to love about this episode, the one thing that sets it apart from the rest of the season, was the presence of Historian Cindy Burke. Finally, we have an actual professional talking about one of these stories. Yes, there are still first-hand accounts. But that is how these sorts of stories work best. We have the emotional retelling of evocative survivors. But we also have a professional who is emotionally separated from the situation backing up these stories with historical knowledge.

Advertisement

This wouldn’t have mattered as much in any other setting. But Suburban Screams has been clear from the start that it wants to be seen as a documentary. This is supposed to be real. And if you’re going to claim that your ghost story is real, bring receipts. As many as you can.

If we’d seen more historians, detectives, and police reports through this series, it probably wouldn’t have the bad rating it does on IMDB.

What didn’t work

Well, it might still have had a bad rating. Because the acting in this episode was, for lack of a stronger word, terrible.

I don’t know if it was the directing, the casting, or just a weak talent budget. But not a single person except for the man playing the Bunny Man could act in any of these dramatic reenactment scenes.

The worst offender was probably the child playing Ed’s childhood friend. This character was way overacted. It’s as though the child had seen a parody of how little boys behave, and was told to act like that. As this was a little boy, he was likely a bit embarrassed.

Advertisement

And I know, I’m trash-talking a child actor. I’m trash-talking all of the children actors in this episode. But children can act. There are lots of examples of kids doing great acting jobs. Stranger Things is an obvious example. Violent Night is another. The kid can act. These kids couldn’t act.

Is it true?

Unlike most of the other episodes in this series, The Bunny Man is a story I’ve heard before. It is a legitimate urban legend that blossomed from a few firsthand accounts of madmen doing scary things dressed as rabbits in Fairfax County, West Virginia. These events probably inspired others to do stupid things like dress up like a rabbit and run around with an ax. Much like the people who decided to dress up like clowns and scare the hell out of people across the country in 2016.

So, yes, the Bunny Man is very much real. He’s real in the hearts and minds of pranksters and West Virginia frat boys. And he is based on some very real, very upsetting, actual events.

I honestly wish the whole season of Suburban Screams had been exactly like this. Filled with facts, first-hand accounts, and proof of scary events. This was everything I wanted in a supernatural/true crime story. So if you’re giving the rest of the season a pass, I would suggest watching this episode.

Advertisement
4 out of 5 stars (4 / 5)

Continue Reading

Trending