Notes from the Last Drive-In: S4E7 – ‘Butcher, Baker, Nightmare Maker’ and ‘The Baby’
Welcome back for another night at the Drive-In with venerable host Joe Bob Briggs with an arrested development double feature of Butcher, Baker, Nightmare Maker (1981) and The Baby (1973). This episode is S4E7, and we get a night with a theme that works better than previous nights this season, anchored by two strange films about sexual confusion, infantilized male victims, and bold and assertive character actresses.
So, does Shudder‘s best show dazzle this week, or is it caught in a state of arrested development? How does it compare to last week’s double feature? Let’s find out together.
Butcher, Baker, Nightmare Maker (1981)
Butcher, Baker, Nightmare Maker (sometimes referred to as the confusing Night Warning) is a 1981 exploitation horror film directed by William Ascher with some uncredit segments by Michael Miller. The film was written by Stephen Breimer, Boon Collins, and Allan Jay Glueckman, from a story by Glueckman. The cinematography is credited to Robbie Greenberg, but Jan de Bont has uncredited work on the film’s exhilarating and chaotic opening sequence. The film stars Jimmy McNichol, Susan Tyrrell, Bo Svenson, Julia Duffy, and Bill Paxton.
The movie is an Oedipal nightmare about a teenager, Billy (McNichol), who has been raised by his aunt, Cheryl (Tyrell), since infancy after the death of his parents in a tragic car accident. As Billy’s sights are set on leaving home for college, Cheryl begins to spiral into incestuous and murderous sexuality. In time, a bigoted detective, Joe (Svenson), begins to theorize wildly about a gay element in the events, abusing his authority and his community.
Butcher, Baker, Nightmare Maker is a mess of a film anchored by a handful of great performances and some thematic ideas that, while interesting, never coalesce into something more significant. The film’s twist is introduced somewhat haphazardly about mid-way through the runtime and doesn’t land. The movie also has an odd ending comprising two endings and a text crawl depicting later events. In many ways, the story is handled pretty poorly – the twist doesn’t feel earned, the more exciting elements of the story are brushed aside, and the overall pacing feels uneven.
The film also has an uneven feel due to direction and cinematography as the credited director and cinematographer, Asher and Greenberg, fill in for the original crew who were removed for the film. The opening sequence depicting the car accident is wonderfully shot and paced and has a real film quality. The rest of the film has the texture of a made-for-TV movie of the 1980s. One wonders how the film would have ended had the studio had more faith in Michael Miller and Jan de Bont.
The real appeal of the film comes from some of the performances. One performance that falls short is 1980s teen heartthrob Jimmy McNichol. McNichol’s Billy is generally wooden and ineffectual, with little going for him beyond looking good in peril. In most other slasher films, such a performance would be reserved for a female victim, which is an exciting component of the film’s queer coding. I get a sense of an “arrested development” theme to Billy’s story, but Billy’s aunt may better express the theme. Cheryl drives the movie.
No, the real performances in the film are those of Susan Tyrrell and Bo Svenson. The film’s energy is highest when the two are together on screen. Susan Tyrell’s menace as Cheryl is both disturbingly sexy and brutally unhinged. Her overall character actor performance style pulls the movie together through the sheer force of will that are her character choices. Bo Svenson is just a game, playing the detestable ideal of the bad cop, the one people envision when they think about the abusive excess of the law. Bo Svenson is the toxic masculinity to the unhinged femininity of Susan Tyrell.
Oh, and Bill Paxton is there being Bill Paxton. Always a welcome presence in any film.
Joe Bob-servations on Butcher, Baker, Nightmare Maker
I think that Joe Bob did a great job selling the arrested development theme of the night overall. While the film ostensibly centers around the dangerous developmental restraints placed on Billy by his unhinged Aunt, we also see that by the end, the film is very much focused on her lack of development.
I’ve been hesitant to embrace the show’s tendency this season to make a definitive claim on the themes of the pairings, especially when they do not work. I am likely the only person in the Mutant Fam who is fixated on this, but I’d prefer pairings to be less explicitly unified by the show and instead uncover them for myself. But that is just me.
Naturally, Joe Bob’s insights were welcome as ever. We return to the fascinating topic of Susan Tyrrell again after last Halloween’s Angel (1983). We also get some background on Bo Svenson and learn that he wasn’t necessarily the most popular guy on set.
My favorite discussion was about Jimmy McNichol’s role in the film’s creation and just how big of a deal he was. The McNichol craze was before my time, but I managed to get a real sense of why McNichol being in this movie was such a strange thing. While I feel Joe Bob can be a bit hit or miss regarding queer subtext in films, I think his discussion on McNichol’s relationship to the queering of the 1980s was fascinating. A great deal of it was based on a book by Jefferey P. Dennis titled Queering Teen Culture: All-American Boys and Same-Sex Desire in Film and Television, but I found the overall discussion quite interesting.
Final Thoughts on Butcher, Baker, Nightmare Maker
Butcher, Baker, Nightmare Maker is such a strange film, but one that is anchored by some incredible acting by Susan Tyrrell and Bo Svenson that you cannot help but be sucked into it. Ultimately, it seems that Butcher, Baker, Nightmare Maker is a film that seeds loftier themes and ideas than it is capable of sewing, resulting in a curious, yet ultimately minor, chapter of queer cinema. It is a film that could benefit from a remake, though any such remake would struggle to capture the scene-chewing fun of Tyrrell and Svenson.
Joe Bob gave the film 4 out of 4 Stars. I would beg to differ. I’d give Butcher, Baker, Nightmare Maker 3 out of 5 Cthulhus.
(3 / 5)
Best Line: “Perverts and sluts! They are doing everything they can to take him away from us.” – Cheryl
The Baby (1973)
The Baby is a 1973 psychological thriller directed by Ted Post and written by Abe Polsky, a playwright. The cinematographer is Michael D. Marguiles. Curiously, the credited director and cinematographer came into production after it had already begun. The film stars Anjanette Comer, Ruth Roman, Marianna Hill, David Mooney (credited as Manzy), and Suzanne Zenor.
The Baby follows social worker Ann Gentry (Comer), who is still traumatized by a car accident that has had severe repercussions on her husband. Her latest case puts in in touch with the Wadsworth family consisting of Mrs. Wadsworth (Roman), sisters Germaine and Alaba (Hill and Zenor), and the intellectually disabled son, known only as Baby (Mooney) who has been raised into his 20s as an infant. The Wadsworths raise Baby as an infant and use him to pay for the home with state funds. Ann Gentry takes a particular interest in the case, but her obsession also begins to take a problematic turn.
The Baby is a pretty wild film and a great example of the “arrested development” theme of the show. Much like the preceding film, viewers are presented with a twist in The Baby, but this one feels more earned. With that being said, the set-up could have been a bit stronger. For a time, viewers may forget that Ann was even married. The story is quite good, making a strange custody struggle into an epic interpersonal conflict between two strong women, and the hapless male has been rendered into little more than an infant.
Like the previous feature, this is another film driven by performances. Ruth Roman’s Mrs. Wadsworth owns the movie, but Anjanette Comer is suitably game to keep up with her, and they play their roles with earnest and unhinged conviction. The film is propelled by the power struggle of the two women, and the push and pull between them are exhilarating. It is not even a battle of good vs. evil, as Comer’s Ann Gentry reveals a specific unhinged menace that makes viewers wonder if they can trust anyone.
Of course, maybe the film’s strangest and most affecting performance is that of David Mooney as Baby. Any actor can play what reads like an infant. Mooney inhabits the role in such a shocking and unsettling way that it can be profoundly disturbing. The vocalizations Mooney manages are haunting. An adult acting like a baby is easy to tell because generally, adults do not ambulate the right way, nor do they portray the sensory overload of an infant well enough. Mooney does, though. It’s intense.
The pacing of the film is excellent. Not a moment feels wasted. However, the cinematography is adequate but not overly impressive. The Baby is very much an actor’s film. Director Ted Post, a veteran of television, very much comes from the background of directing an actor’s medium instead of spectacle, and the film’s cinematography by Michael D. Marguiles is in line with Post’s perspective. However, the film does look good, and the transfer played on Shudder was fantastic.
Joe Bob-servations on The Baby
Joe Bob’s host segments here primarily focused on elements of the production and the apparent themes of the film. With such a strange movie, themes are a little harder to parse, so I found that Joe Bob leaned more heavily on production details. Specifically, Joe Bob paid much attention to director Ted Post and his collaboration with writer Abe Polsky. I got the impression that Post saw himself as a vessel by which to deliver Polsky’s writing, not so much wanting to interject himself or his thoughts into the feature.
The other production angle that was particularly interesting was the antagonistic relationship on set between veteran Ruth Roman and the younger Anjanette Comer. There was a lot of discussion of Ruth Roman as an actress, and Darcy even cosplayed Mrs. Wadsworth. That conveys how much of a role Roman had in the perception of the film. Of course, much was made about the performance of David Mooney and how he pretty much quit acting after playing Baby. If you’ve peaked, why climb higher, right?
Speaking of peaking, is Baby the peak of the concept of arrested development? It sure seems so.
Final Thoughts on The Baby
The Baby is a weird one. While it isn’t as extreme as Blood Sucking Freaks, it’s a very unsettling film. The internal logic is maddening, reflecting a far less enlightened perspective on abuse and development than we might see today. The film is also equally cruel and kinky, creating a wildly uneven tone that swings between camp and horror. However, it all seems to work. The core drama of two women fighting over an infantilized male creates rich opportunities for dramatic performance. If you can get through the initial revulsion that more fetishistic elements of the movie might bring on, you will witness a compelling duel.
Joe Bob gave The Baby 4 out of 4 Stars. I am pretty close to that myself. I give The Baby 4 out of 5 Cthulhus.
(4 / 5)
Best Line: “Maybe you think too much. When it comes to Baby, I do all the thinking.” – Mrs. Wadsworth
Haunted MTL Drive-In Totals
We have the official Drive-In Totals from Shudder for this evening of arrested development.
As for our totals at Haunted MTL, we have…
- 3 Bad Mommies
- 6 “Thee-ate-ers”
- Surprise Bill Paxton
- Bloody Bossom
- Boss Bitches
- Multiple Red Flags
- Gratuitous Nephew Touching
- Gratuitous Key Party Vibes
- Gratuitous Homoerotic Lockerroom Shenanigans
- Scene Chewing
- Problematic Word Dropping
- Dead Baby Jokes
- Ugly Baby Joke
- Bunny and Snake Joke
- Steven King Name Drop Fu
- Clipboard Fu
- Double Ending Fu
- Twist Fu
- Custody Battle Fu
- Chart Fu
- Billy Rolls
- Darcy Cosplay – Mrs. Wadsworth
Episode Score for the Last Drive-In: S4E7 – Butcher Baker Nightmare Maker and The Baby
Season 4, Episode 7 was a solid night for the show, where most nights are pretty much solid anyway. This week’s double-feature selection may not win over every mutant, but the bonkers nature of the films and their pairing work pretty well and are worth the experience. While I think that The Baby, arguably the more unsettling film was also the better film, that is not to say that Butcher, Baker, Nightmare Maker is terrible either. The central idea of them representing arrested development worked out pretty well, though I feel these films might have been better suited for a Mother’s Day marathon.
Regardless, a fun time at the Drive-In with the mutant fam, as we have come to expect.
(4 / 5)
What did you think about the movies? Which do you feel was better? Did “arrested development” night work for you? Let us know in the comments. We’d love to hear your thoughts!
Please join us on Twitter next Friday as we live-tweet with the rest of the Mutant Fam during The Last Drive-In with Joe Bob Briggs.
Can’t get enough of The Baby? (Sponsored)
Why not snag yourself a copy of the Arrow Video Blu-ray release of The Baby on Amazon? Using our sponsored link will help Haunted MTL continue to cover horror content.
Doctor Who
The Modern Phoenix – Revisiting the first Regeneration in Doctor Who
In 1966 Television history changed forever as the Doctor changed from William Hartnell to Patrick Troughton. But how that came about, and the response is a very different story
Regeneration is one of the most distinctive elements of Doctor Who. For a series that has lasted for over sixty years, there’s been remarkably little change within “Doctor Who.” Yes, the cast changes routinely, and some seasons have an arc, but the bare bones of the series – a Time traveler travelling through time and space with human companion(s) exploring new worlds and helping people – remain as consistent in 1963-1964 as they are in 2024. A story like “The Daleks” or “The Aztecs” still covers the same ground that “The Giggle” or “Rosa” did sixty years later.
One of the few, and the most significant, exception to this, however, is regeneration. The idea that the Doctor can change his form when injured, or aged, was a significant shift in the series, and one that has become central to its longevity. I’d say only one other major change comes close to being as significant is the introduction of the Time Lords in 1969’s “The War Games.” However even that did not provide as much of an impact as regeneration.
Since the initial regeneration scene at the end of “The Tenth Planet” episode 4, we as fans have become used to it. Doctor Who fans go through the cycle when we hear of a new regeneration. First we are uncertain, accepting them, and then preparing for the time they too will regenerate. Regeneration is normal now – but what was it like for people back in 1966?
This article explores the multiple factors in Doctor Who that lead to the first Regeneration, or Renewal as it was initially known. In particular we will look at how audiences and texts of the time attempted to explain and understand the change.
Underling issues in 1965
The 1965-1966 season of Doctor Who was already a time of significant change. Verity Lambert, the original producer, left early in the third season. Most of the original cast of companions left throughout the second season. William Hartnell was now the longest running, and the most significant person involved in the making of Doctor Who. As a result, he had a certain ownership of the character of the Doctor, and the series itself.
According to a range of sources, William Hartnell had favourite people who could help manage his moods. Maureen O’Brien (Vicki) described her role as “laughing (Hartnell) out of his five or six tempers a day.” When William Hartnell had conflict with others, both William Russell (Ian) and Peter Purves (Steven Taylor) would mediate. According to Producers, Hartnell would be frustrated about the length of the script, and need to rehearse. According to castmates, Hartnell would be insisting on maintaining consistency in the series, such as by ensuring the TARDIS controls maintained the same use over all episodes.
During the third season, however, Hartnell began to slowly lose his supports throughout the cast. William Russell had already left the series in 1965 by choice. Other cast who shared Hartnell’s frustrations found their contracts not renewed. When Maureen O’Brien had her contract ended while she was on holiday. Peter Purves also had his contract not continued. Both actors had voices objections about the development of their characters, but were shocked to find this resulted in leaving the series. The abrupt nature of these exits further exacerbated conflict Hartnell felt towards the production crew.
This conflict came to a boil with 1966’s “The Celestial Toymaker.”
The Regeneration That Never Was
In “The Celestial Toymaker” the evil Toymaker forces the Doctor to play his games. Out of frustration for breaking rules, the Toymaker makes the Doctor invisible for most of the story. Producer John Wiles planned for the Doctor to be permanently changed in this process, with William Hartnell not returning. Only the objection of the Head of Serials, Gerald Savory, at the time prevented this plan from coming. John Wiles, and his script editor, Donald Tosh, finding the working relationship with Hartnell irreconcilable, resigned. They were replaced by Innes Lloyd and Gerry Pedler respectively.
Hartnell’s health was deteriorating also at the time, though it was not known. He had undiagnosed arteriosclerosis, a condition which restricted blood flow to the brain. This resulted in Hartnell experiencing difficulty remembering long passages and irritability from these memory gaps.
Hartnell disclosed some of these pressures in an interview to the Daily Mail on April 26, 1966. In this interview, Hartnell expressed feelings of irritation with people. Discussing the production team, Hartnell explained he knew his role and did not want their interruptions and alterations. The Producer at the time, John Wiles, was not aware of Hartnell’s illness. Subsequently, Wiles had seen Hartnell’s memory lapses and moods as an act, further antagonizing their relationship.
Despite these issues, Hartnell states in the interview the BBC would continue the series as long as Hartnell remained. Hartnell however wanted to have more time off, and more space to recover. Noticeably around 1966, Hartnell’s Doctor is frequently missing in episodes. Health issues and holidays meant Hartnell had a reduced role in most stories from “The Massacre” onwards.
Alongside these internal stressors, reviews externally began to criticize the program. The Daily Worker in 1966 described the series as “showing signs of age” and that “Youngsters are getting tired of it”
With Peter Purves leaving in June 1966, Anneke Wills as Polly and Michael Craze as Ben became the new companions. However, Hartnell did not establish a good relationship with his new co-stars. Interviews with the two actors reported Hartnell appearing very isolated and alone. Wills reported Hartnell would lose his temper quickly over ridiculous things, leaving her and the other cast very tense. She added the remaining cast supported each other apart from Hartnell. Reportedly, Hartnell complained about Wills sitting in his chair, and Wills responded by having her own chair available for all. By June 1966, the increased conflict in the production office and health concerns lead to discussions of replacing Hartnell. However, this time Producer Innes Lloyd had approval to look for a new Doctor. By 16th of July, Hartnell had told his wife that he had decided to leave the series.
But the way he was to change was still to be determined.
Introducing Regeneration
The term “Regeneration” itself did not occur at this time in the series. Two regenerations later in “Planet of the Spiders” this process was officially named as regeneration. Initially, in production discussions, the action was described as “Renewal.”
It is not exactly clear who first developed the idea of how the Doctor was to change form. However, it is most likely to have come from discussions between Innes Lloyd and Script Editor Gerry Davis. Production notes at the time focus mostly on the character of the new Doctor, with little about the change itself. What the Production team did envisage was a change which occurred every 900 years or so, feeling:
As if he has had the LSD drug and instead of experiencing the kicks, he has the hell and dank horror
Initial Interpretations of the First Regeneration
The Doctor Who Annual 1968 is a fascinating snap shot into how the change initially by the public of 1967. Annuals were produced around the middle of the year, to give to children at Christmas time. In the sixties, annuals were one of the few examples of Doctor Who media available. There were no books, very few novelizations, and definitely no audio plays. If you wanted further adventures with the Doctor, or to read about Doctor Who the series, the annual was almost your only option.
For the 1968 Annual, we have a few first ever events. It is the first time the Annuals would feature television companions alongside the Doctor, with Ben and Polly appearing. And of course, this is the first annual which featured Patrick Troughton’s Doctor as main character.
Reading through it, it seems the authors did watch Troughton’s first story “Power of the Daleks” but no further. Popular companion Jamie (Introduced in Troughton’s second story), does not appear. Troughton’s costume from his first story, features in all images, despite the costume not being used again.
Also in the annual, there is an article entitled “Phoenix in the TARDIS.” This article compares the mythological creature of the Phoenix from Arabic folklore, with the new Doctor as “Our Modern Phoenix.” The article describes the change as follows:
At the end of nine hundred years, a strange psychological storm rejuvenated his form, changing his character in many ways
The article describes the new Doctor as more “with it” and “switched on” to the 20th century. The Doctor is less likely to confide in companions, and more likely to be a man of action. Surprisingly, this article is the first time regeneration is used in Doctor Who, with the conclusion pondering “What lies ahead for the regenerated Doctor.”
What’s interesting about this article is how the act of regeneration isn’t seen as an event that will reoccur. Instead, this is an event that needs almost a millennia to actually come about. Troughton planned to leave the role longer than three years, but he also doubted the series would last this long. Troughton was interviewed later he admitted he thought the change to Hartnell would lead to a cancellation within a year. Even when Troughton did leave after three years, changing the Doctor again was only considered as an alternative to cancellation when suitable alternative series could not be found.
Audience reactions, gathered by the BBC were not positive to the change. Audience feedback during his first story reviewed Troughton as being miscast as the Doctor. The media, while initially curious about the change, became increasingly critical of Troughton during the first season. The Daily Worker on Janaury 25th 1967 reported that while Hartnell would bring dignity to the party in stories, Troughton’s clownish person only amplifies the nonsense. The radio times meanwhile interviewed a member of the public, decrying Troughton as turning the Doctor into “Coco the Clown”
Meanwhile, the ongoing Doctor Who comic strip in “Tv Comic” adapted to the change of incarnation but not mentioning it. The Doctor had been William Hartnell, and now was Patrick Troughton. He still travelled with the same companions of his Grandchidren John and Gillian, who did not seem to care that their Doctor was different, though no longer referred to him as “Grandfather” anymore.
Long Term Acceptance of Regeneration
Troughton’s Doctor was eventually accepted as his first season moved away from historical stories, and towards images of the future. The Cybermen’s return in “The Moonbase” in particular had some critics changing their appraisal of this new era. At the same time, cast changes, with Frazer Hines, joining the cast, added to reasons audiences enjoyed the series more.
However, that does not mean regeneration was accepted as normal. After three years, Troughton announced his departure from the program. With six full years completed, the BBC discussed completing the series, and replacing with something new, with an idea of being influenced by the new series “Star Trek” being discussed.
What saved “Doctor Who” at the point was lack of suitable options, with only Doctor who able to start relatively simpler and be adaptable to what the channel needed. However, budgets did need to be cut, leading to the Third Doctor’s era being largely earthbound for the first three years. This necessity of reduced exploration lead to a series with a larger regular cast, going beyond the Doctor and his companions, and including regular allies in UNIT, and a regular enemy in the Master. This regularity meant that when the Doctor faced his third regeneration, the first to be described as a regeneration, the threat of cancellation with actor departure was no longer considered.
Instead with “Planet of the Spiders” we have the first regeneration where the process was paid attention to. The idea of regeneration coming about when a body faces significant damage or trauma is first referenced in this story. The idea of being reborn rather than rejuvenated is expressly stated in this story.
Final Thoughts
Looking back at the production notes for Hartnell’s final story, it’s surprising how little information or consideration went into it. Even now, we’re not entirely sure who exactly came up with the idea of regeneration. Likely no single person can ever claim credit to the full idea. John Wiles original idea of the Doctor being transformed by the Celestial Toymaker undoubtedly had an influence by raising the idea of changing the Doctor but keeping the series, even though the change only occurred after he had resigned.
When looking at the past, it’s important to remember that while regeneration for the modern series is just a process of adapting to a cast change, in 1966, regeneration was a risk taken by a series trying to survive. The producers wanted little attention to be focused on the change, and instead to move on quickly with a new actor, and hence very little description or detail went into the change.
And that, in part, is why for Doctor Who regeneration was so successful, and determined the longevity of the series to this day. If William Hartnell had been replaced by the Celestial Toymaker, with the process being a consequence of running afoul of an evil God like character, such a precise process would have been difficult to repeat for later cast changes without being obviously repetitive. By keeping the idea of regeneration in Doctor Who vague it allowed mythology to develop around it as needed either by a production crew, or as needed for a story.
Regeneration was created for Doctor Who to respond to an actor’s decaying health, and intense conflict within a production team. But it continues by allowing a constant refresh and re-invigoration of the series, while keeping its base format the same.
With Season Two of Ann Rice’s Mayfair Witches coming out sometime later this year, I thought it was time for me to check it out. Though I’ve never been a big Ann Rice fan, I thought for sure that a story about witchcraft would be something different. Perhaps it would be less dull, less dramatic, and a bit more fun.
It was not
Just the facts
Released in January of 2023 on AMC, Mayfair Witches is based on the Ann Rice series, Lives of the Mayfair Witches. It follows the tale of Rowan Fielding. Adopted as a baby, Rowan discovers that she’s the heir to a powerful witch family. She’s eventually lured to New Orleans, where she learns more about her forgotten family and the secrets that she’s already a part of.
What Mayfair Witches got right
The first thing that I noticed about the show is the key necklace that several characters wear and carry throughout the show. I appreciated that. For those who don’t know, a key is one of the symbols of a deity known as Hekate. This is a goddess many witches hold a lot of fondness for, as She is considered the goddess of witches, among other things. So I liked seeing her represented.
I also liked that so much of this first season was set in New Orleans. There are many places in America that are strong in witch history and lore, but few are as well known for it as New Orleans. So they got that much right, at least.
What Mayfair Witches got wrong
Unfortunately, that was about all there was to enjoy about Mayfair Witches. I honestly struggled to get through it, if I’m being totally honest.
First, as I’ve mentioned before, witchcraft is not something that must be passed down from parent to child. While your ancestry can play a role in your magic, if you want it to, it’s not the only or even the most important factor. I am the first witch in my family, and I do just fine.
My second complaint is also a complaint about the show in general. Mayfair Witches is not a joyful show. It’s not a funny show. It is a show that takes itself very seriously as it talks about very serious things without a spark of levity or joy anywhere to be seen. Even the party scene in the first episode, The Witching Hour, seems more ominous than fun. No one seems like they’re having a good time. Rather, they all seem like they’re trying very hard to look like they’re having a good time.
This is a problem I have with Rice’s work in general, but it’s especially insulting when we’re talking about witchcraft. Witchcraft is joyful. It’s warm. It’s fiery and passionate. Sometimes it’s serious ritual work, but it’s also laughing when your tarot cards roast you. It’s getting together with friends over the sabbats and sharing good food. It’s making a tea with a spell whispered into it. It’s protecting and providing for yourself and those you love.
There was none of that in Mayfair Witches. There is no joy, or warmth, or giving oneself space and tools for healing. There is no happiness here. And that’s just not witchcraft to me.
Nor, frankly, is it entertaining television.
Finally, I have one last bone to pick with this show. It’s made clear during this season that Rowan has no choice about being a witch. But that’s the opposite of the whole point of witchcraft.
Being a witch is a choice like I said in my Supernatural review. You are not, cannot be a witch unless you decide that you are. No bloodline or initiation is more important to your craft than saying publicly or privately that you are a witch.
In the end, I can’t in good faith recommend Mayfair Witches to you. It’s dull, it takes itself too seriously, and it’s a rather grim depiction of magic in general. If you enjoyed it, I’m happy for you. But as for me, I’ll give it a pass. There are far more interesting stories being told.
(1.5 / 5)
Featuring Shannon LeGro and author Aaron Deese, Dogman Territory: Werewolves in The Land Between the Lakes follows the pair in search of what many believe to be a real-world monster. Small Town Monsters investigates one of the darkest urban legends in North American history.
Well, even though this screener is late by…(checks watch) a few months, that doesn’t mean that I don’t have anything to say about it. That is to say, I DO have something to say about this new edition about dogman cryptids by STM.
So, welcome to another episode of ‘Brannyk talks about Small Town Monsters’! We’ve explored the Joisey Devil, aliens giving boo boos to cows, totally Bigfoot, a big ol’ stinky doggo, your tea-spilling ghost-witch, an alien Bigfoot with a hankering for a good peanut butter sandwich, Cowboy Werewolves, ‘The STM Which Will Not Be Named‘, and Native skinwalking creeps. We have a new screener from Small Town Monsters.
Plot of Dogman Territory: Werewolves in The Land Between the Lakes
We follow Aaron Deese on his quest to find out the mystery of the massacre that happened at the Land Between the Lakes, a recreational area bordering on Kentucky and Tennessee.
With Shannon LeGro by his side, the two investigate the strange encounters locals have reported. Gathering modern day and older accounts of super stinky dogmen, Deese ventures deeper into the lore and history of the site to see is there’s any truth to the massacre accounted there or if they’re all just campfire stories…
Thoughts on Werewolves in The Land Between the Lakes:
Nope. The “massacre” accounts are completely bogus third-rate creepy pasta stories. The one guy that they found from the internet won’t even be interviewed on camera and has…lacking testimony, and I say that generously.
Thankfully, Deese gets right to it and even he himself seems disappointed by what he discovers. And he just kind of blows past it, not really spending much time on the whole “massacre”. It’s a smart move and I appreciated it because instead of draaaaawing it out, he chose instead to focus on what matters – the locals and the history.
And, as always, with Breedlove at the helm, the historical facts of this recreation area are highlighted, such as the area being designated a recreation area by President Kennedy and the Tennessee Valley Authority exercising imminent domain. By this action, approximately 800 families were displaced from their land, causing protests and outrage by some of the families. Shining a light on a history that most don’t realize or possibly have forgotten.
And one last thought: this sewer-juice-smelling dogman is a massive dick. He, like, tries to kill you and then teleports out just for shits and giggles. Massive douche.
Brainroll Juice:
I’m not sure exactly why cryptid investigator Martin Grove became such a turning point for me in the documentary, but boy, he sure did. Martin is an absolute delight and I will bare-knuckle fight anyone who disagrees (I’m not saying that I’d win, keep that in mind, just that I would).
He’s just so genuine and curious that, even though I’m still a skeptic, I’d 100% go looking for a super smelly, translucent alien/demon dogman with him. You can tell that Martin Groves has no doubt in what he does and tries his very best to figure out the mystery behind the dogman between the Lakes. Often at his own expense and safety.
It was the Texas dogman STM that talked about people being depressed after they’ve had a cryptid experience, often finding themselves isolated from friends and family who just…don’t understand. They feel like people think they’re crazy and that they’re alone in their experiences and feelings. Many times becoming withdrawn and, well, traumatized.
Martin talks like he’s seeking proof just so people who had dogmen experiences don’t have to feel alone or crazy. That people can take comfort that what they saw is real and true. He’s standing up to that stanky-ass dogman and risking his own health by going into the creepy woods at night and searching for what he believes in.
And it doesn’t matter if you or I believe in a garbage-sludge, asshole dogman because what Martin is doing is beautiful. It’s the American dream. Believing in yourself and fighting for those who can’t.
And THAT is what Small Town Monsters is all about.
Bottomline:
If you’re here for the people and less for the dogmen, this is a great snapshot of the history and people of the region. Also, when is Martin Groves going to get his own paranormal show?
(3.5 / 5)
And now a word from Small Town Monsters
Dogman Territory: Werewolves in The Land Between the Lakes
Now Streaming Exclusively on Prime Video
Available on Blu/DVD from Small Town Monsters
Massilon, OH– Venture deep into the Land Between the Lakes as Small Town Monsters investigates one of the darkest urban legends in North American history. Featuring Shannon LeGro and author Aaron Deese, Dogman Territory: Werewolves in The Land Between the Lakes includes interviews with witnesses, researchers and long-time locals of the Tennessee and Kentucky borders, all in search of what many believe to be a real-world monster. Dogman Territory: Werewolves in The Land Between the Lakes is now available exclusively on Amazon Prime Video. A Blu-ray (SRP $19.99) and DVD (SRP ($14.99) will be available exclusively from the Small Town Monsters shop.
Watch the trailer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w3T8ZFUhck
