Can Horror Movies Reflect Society?

Halloween is approaching (as if you hadn’t noticed). So naturally you’ll be searching for various horror movies to watch over this sort-of-holiday. It does get you thinking though as you examine various horror movies, how some manage to provide you with a cheap scare and yet others stay with you for far longer than their running time. Why is that? Well to sound slightly pretentious, society. Every now and then a horror film, by design or accident, latches on to a trend in society and exploits the fear that it generates. Where cinematic horror was once a celebration of how different its creatures were from us, filmmakers soon began to use it as a way to reflect the fears its audiences held about society and mould it into a memorable sense of horror.
   Back in the earlier days of cinema one of the most notable aspects of the business was censorship that in America was upheld by deeply Christian groups. So as a result one could make an incredibly horrifying film with two resources, themes that went against Christian values, and implied imagery. By doing these two things it was virtually guaranteed that you would frighten the censors who are paid to analyse every detail and decipher every suggested frame of your movie. ‘Nosferatu’ of 1922 was a German expressionist film a genre that lived off implying its themes through imagery. By directly defying so many of the values of the censorship boards the film earned itself a condemnation, the movie itself became more frightening than anything it was depicting. It did not matter how frightening it actually was, as long as everyone was telling you it was scary, you would be wary of said film.
History lesson (don’t worry I’ll hold your hand through it, actually that sounds worryingly creepy). In the 1950s World War 2 was over, but for most American people there was another fear within society. It was communism. Whether this fear was justified or not, government heavyweights like Joseph McCarthy worked to fuel those fears and emphasised the identification and subversion through what was later called The Red Scare. Movie time now, as ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ stuck to the popular genre of the time with science fiction. The plot involves a man who is horrified to discover that people in his town have been replaced with alien duplicates known as pod-people. His delirious ramblings attract attention from the townspeople and soon he is unsure who is real and who is a duplicate.
So who represents who? Well pod-people are the communists in this scenario (obviously this is relative to how the public perceived them at the time), a festering race of aliens that will absorb you into their society, and you in turn will do the same to everyone you know and will spread across the world. But in that respect, does the man who discovers them represent McCarthy, deliriously running around, accusing his neighbours and friends of being traitors? Did ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ even intentionally use this fear of communism, or was it just a coincidence that one can only see in retrospect. As well as that of course the film could be an allegory that criticises The Red Scare or justifies it.
Danger in disguise was the main message of horror now, and no one epitomised that better than a young man known as Norman Bates. You know the story of Psycho, so let’s go straight into analysis. Following two world wars on an industrial scale many people were now witnessing first hand psychological damage, but though it was becoming a more accepted ailment, the average person still had little understanding of it and usually found the notion of one person undergoing a complete personality change rather frightening. These murders are unmotivated and committed with a sudden and violent rage that basically said to people that anyone can kill you at any time.
By 1968 the Civil Rights movement was still taking place, and arguments about racial equality and desegregation were raging perhaps more than ever. But when a zombie invasion takes place (I am talking about films now, you did not miss a page of your history textbook about zombies) the few survivors must band together regardless of racial prejudice because they are all that is left of humanity. ‘Night of the Living Dead’ definitely had a lot to say about how humans can be more destructive to themselves than any of the undead, with just a few handfuls of people left abrasive personalities turn on each other. The whole point is only further emphasised by the films ending, spoiler ahead. Our black protagonist Sam is shot by another survivor (either mistaking him for a zombie or in a more sinister interpretation, seeing it as a chance to kill Sam out of racial hatred), unless we put these prejudices aside we will ultimately destroy ourselves. Then there is the fact that the zombies arise from a nuclear fallout, where did that idea come from I wonder?
   A lot of bad stuff had gone down in the 1960s, to such an extent that by 1973 many people were stating that the classic American dream and its ideologies was dead. Households were no longer whole, religion was a source of conflict not unity and even children were left exposed to the evils of the world. Did I hear ‘the power of Christ compels you’? Yes The Exorcist, the one and only. For all the reasons I just listed this satanic horror had a profound impact on so many moviegoers. Parental negligence and a broken home was why Linda Blair was left vulnerable to being possessed by Satan and as a key part of religious teachings, the idea that religion brought so much fear and pain to a home only further damaged that notion of the death of classic America. And the subject of that possession is a little girl. How much more cynical can the outlook get? Well the fact that other religious horrors about family like ‘Rosemary’s Baby’ and ‘The Omen’ came out just hammered that point in further.
The evil of ‘The Exorcist’ also penetrates homes, leaving no safe haven. What else did that in the 1970s? Of course, Mr Michael Myers. By 1978 there was a growing fear that nowhere was safe, the Zodiac Killer brought on a serial killer craze and even the President was capable of scandal and conspiracy (the remake of ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ served as a metaphor for closed door conspiracies). But aside from that, John Carpenter’s ‘Halloween’ popularised the slasher genre as a perfect metaphor for both of those. An unstoppable and unmotivated killer slashes through victims, invading their homes at random selection (sounds familiar to ‘Psycho’, well wrap your head around the fact that ‘Halloween’s’ star Jamie Lee Curtis is the daughter of Janet Leigh, star of ‘Psycho’, that cannot be an accident).
   Finally, has any horror film provoked as much analysis and deliberation as ‘The Shining’. Initially the film was received harshly (even nominated for a few Razzie Awards) but over time gained a huge following and acclaim. Why? Well I would be one of many to try and decipher what this film means (there is even a movie called ‘Room 237’ specifically devoted to finding out what it means). Maybe, just maybe that is the most frightening thing about ‘The Shining’. As society became more concerned with what it knew and the information age took over, to be presented with something that had so many deeper meanings and possible interpretations is almost unnerving, and if the blood filled elevator, slaughtered twins, carpet patterns, locked vault doors and eerie photographs from 1921 all actually mean one conclusive thing, I shudder to think of what hellish nightmare it could be. Even though I think Stanley Kubrick may the most unique and ingenious directorial mind of all time I admit it would be a stretch to say that he predicted the rise of the internet. But I think he understood that sometimes allowing things to fester within people’s minds generates more terror than anything you can show them. If you ask them to draw a conclusion for themselves it can serve as a metaphor for their own personal fears, regardless of the context in society or culture that they first see his movie. Kubrick did the same thing for science fiction with ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’, he did it with crime in ‘A Clockwork Orange’ and he did the same thing for horror with ‘The Shining’, perhaps that makes it the most timeless horror film of all time.
So those are my ramblings on horror movies but I would love to hear yours. Feel free to leave a comment below, thanks and bye.  

How has the American Dream been Represented in Cinema?

Movies act as a way to represent certain attitudes and social opinions on a wide and potentially ultra-subliminal level. If there is one theme that has been repeated and altered time and time again it is the American Dream. The way it is represented in cinema can demonstrate and entire nations attitude, sometimes hopeful, cynical or accepting. It has evolved several times over the years and has been reiterated time and time again.  
James Stewart was no stranger to representing the American every-man. He displayed it once with ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ in which he told the story of living and its value for even the most ordinary citizen. His next project was ‘Mr Smith Goes to Washington’ and it rallied the theme of the American Dream to a political level. One key aspect of this dream is good old American democracy (as if that would ever be violated or questioned over the next century). Maintaining such an ideology against corruption and self-servitude is essential here, as Senator Smith defends what he believes in (and what his audience believed in) against corrupt government officials. But at the same time he also argues that just because their political system is flawed it is worth fighting for, reaffirming how the system works despite the exploitative actions of some. Quite a hopeful, good vs evil, viewpoint, andan effective one.
But in just a few short years Orson Welles would bring forth his seminal masterpiece ‘Citizen Kane’. For half of the film it’s the classic American Dream, a self-made man from humble origins is given a chance to build his own empire and succeeds. But it’s as this empire spirals out of control that Welles makes his point of how his fortune is at the expense of Kane’s own happiness, and is always reminiscent of his childhood. Not only that, but by the end of his life, he sees only an empty abyss dominated by his own image, yet no one else’s. In short ‘Citizen Kane’ is a much more cautionary tale of success, personified by his valuable possessions and palace that may appear to be the ultimate sign of freedom, but end up resembling a prison entrapping Kane.
So that’s how adults handled the American Dream to that point, but what about the youngsters, how do they view this limitless potential and freedom. Well as ‘Rebel Without a Cause’ pointed out in 1955, they’re not sure what to do. Instead of taking the route of how naivety is where dreams are most likely to occur, James Dean’s character is torn at the crossroads of independence. He notices the flaws of his parents, the difference between their generations and is unable to find a reason for various actions he carries out. The quintessential rebellious youth spoke to an entire generation of baby boomers in the 1950s, conceived out of a fresh perspective on living, then criticised for trying to do it themselves.
The New Hollywood Movement had its fair share of takes on the American Dream, yet none are quite as epic as ‘Easy Rider’. It’s classic counterculture and classic critique of everything that America valued at the time. After earning a huge amount of money from a drug deal, two friends go on a road trip to a new life where they can spend it. Not only does it point out the immoral way the two earn their success, is highlights how even without knowing their method of success, the rest of the world seems to resent the friends for their success. It would appear that while everyone wants to achieve the American Dream, no one wants to see anyone else achieve it.
‘Rocky’ may appear to be a one dimensional tale of the American Dream, down on his luck hero gets chance and earns his dreams. But remember Rocky Balboa does not win his fight with Apollo Creed (spoiler, but then again it came out nearly forty years ago so, what are you doing instead of watching it?) In fact, one could say that ‘Rocky’s’ version of the American Dream is a parallel to ‘Citizen Kane’s’ version. Instead of getting success without happiness, Rocky achieves happiness without total success (until all of that was undone in the sequels where he becomes the world heavy weight champion, ends the cold war and does the MOST MONTAGES EVER). Of course what Rocky does get is Adrian, and rather than the girls acting as a side note to the main victory, but for Rocky, Adrian’s love is the main victory. Sylvester Stallone pretty much did the ‘Rocky’ story himself to make the movie, and wanted to ensure that though Rocky does not win, he succeeds on his own terms.
Crime is a way to tell an American Dream story better than anything else, especially crime movies by New Hollywood. Coppola and Scorsese are both great at this, but perhaps the most quintessential version of it comes from Brian De Palma’s ‘Scarface’. The tagline says enough ‘He loved the American Dream with a vengeance’. Tony Montana’s American Dream, like all versions of it through crime, is a falsification of it and displays the immorality of his quest to get to the top, as well as the glorification of it. This egotistical side of Tony is his inevitable downfall, which perhaps says more about how this dream can ultimately be an illusion.  
Illusion can be the strongest asset in deciding whether or not you have succeeded. In 1997 PT Anderson brought forward his take on stardom and the American Dream, ‘Boogie Nights’. The artificial nature of this world his brought forward time and time again, we watch how Mark Walberg, by sheer luck manages to find his one large attribute (you know what I’m talking about if you’ve seen it) which erodes all of his failures in academia and real world knowledge. PT Anderson could have just used any area of the film industry to set his story, yet he chose the porn industry. For one simple reason only, it draws more attention to how the characters’ success is simply on a primal level, reliant completely upon their viewers literal idolisation of their bodies, nothing else. This American Dream is all artificial and completely shallow, yet for them it is success and by the end of the film, when Walberg has his fortune and legions of fans, it’s difficult to argue with it.
Until this point these stories had been staged on epic and unique settings, like political showdowns, drug fuelled biker road trips. Cocaine empires and porn stars. But Sam Mendes wanted to redefine the American Dream with suburbia, he did so in 1999 with ‘American Beauty’. It’s not about trying to achieve the dream, it is about what you do afterwards. Lester Burnham is bored with the mundane nature of his life, and seeks to embrace a counterculture lifestyle that’s thirty years out of date. There’s a deep hollowness to the dream here, and one that is only partially redeemable by a more optimistic ending. Yet that message still speaks strongly today.
PT Anderson was back with his own take on the ‘Citizen Kane’ story. In ‘There Will Be Blood’ Danial Plainview is a self-made man, like Charles Kane. But rather than merely sacrificing his happiness for success, Plainview sacrifices his entire humanity. The animalistic aggression, vile hatred within him and sheer primal rage seep through in Daniel Day Lewis’ performance as he not only seeks to triumph over his competitors, he wants to destroy them, devalue their beliefs and morals, ruin their finances and personally assure their absolute decimation. It’s a tale of how the American Dream can become a mad and desperate struggle for victory, in which all that makes a person human can be lost.
Not a positive way to end, and it only gets worse. Martin Scorsese brought forward another take on the American Dream in 2013, and may be his most disturbing yet. In ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ Jordan Belfort lives on pure excess, he is fuelled by drugs and pleasure and we as an audience witness it first-hand. Not only do we admire him, partially, we want to be him. His world of gluttony and fortune is appealing despite the immorality of it, and as he delivers that sale seminar by the end, just like Belfort’s audience we are left in a mixed state of disgust, but more worryingly, awe. What does that say about our dreams?
But what do you think, is there a movie that wasn't on the article, one that was but shouldn't have been. Leave a comment below if you think so, thanks and bye. 

Dead Comedy: Part 2 - Spoof Movies

So now I move on to Part 2 of my series about dead comedy in cinema. Obviously like all comedy sequels it will be significantly worse than the first but you’re here now and you might as well read on, just be thankful that at least I warned you in advance unlike ‘Hangover 2’ or ‘Ted 2’ or any other less than stellar comedy sequel. Last time I looked at screwball, but the other dead form of comedy today seems to be parody. Where did all the parody films go?
Satire goes as far back as Charles Chaplin (because by the 1940s he was formal and grown up, slightly) with his first talking film ‘The Great Dictator’ that originally spawned because someone made a remark that Chaplin looked a bit like Hitler, and given that he was famously an outspoken critic of the Nazis long before World War 2, when war finally arrived in Europe Chaplin made his satire film about a dictator who was almost, not-quite-but-we-all-know-that-he-really-is, a complete caricature of Hitler. It was a huge hit (even more so today as back then there was some criticism, mostly from Germany) not just because of the jokes or the mockery it was due to the fact that Chaplin really did look like Hitler, a dictator reigning over an entire country, and this just made the idea of him being a complete buffoon even more hilarious, like giving a warlike speech that just turns into uncontrollable coughing or juggling an inflatable globe but all in the shape of someone so notorious.
Then the next serious parody was Mel Brooks’ ‘Young Frankenstein’. This had a similar brilliance to it in the sense that it took something very frightening and familiar in people’s minds and made it hilarious. Once again it came from the fact that Brooks was able to recreate the atmosphere and the mood of the original ‘Frankenstein’ so well that any silly or humorous modifications to it weren’t just amusing, they were hysterical. If you could sum it up in one way, I wouldn’t even say the comedic figures are idiots, they just happen to display some of the more notable flaws of humanity in the most serious of circumstances. You’ve got the fact that Igor is in such denial he does not even know he has a deformed spine, or instead of being called Frankenstein the Doctor insists that his students pronounce his name as Frank-en-steen. The contrast pf putting something so humorous next to such a detailed recreation of horror is what makes it truly special.
Mel Brooks had yet more success by parodying westerns with ‘Blazing Saddles’ and ‘science fiction with ‘Space Balls’. Then there were new arrivals with the Zucker Brothers/Abrahams team that would make ‘Hot Shots’, ‘The Naked Gun’ and of course ‘Airplane!’ They were all huge successes and seen by many as a new age in comedy that would last for a long time, they were seen as money makers came out as fast as they could. And that is exactly what killed them. Many imitators sprang up and thought they could nail this success with a simple formula; some references, slapstick, a bit of satire and you had it. In fact that first one seemed to be especially important, as it was theorized that the more references you could get into a movie, the more money it would make.
The problem with this tactic was that there wasn’t always something interesting or funny to say about these references, they were there for the sake of making it look like another movie instead of having something genuinely comical to do with it. Furthermore it made the movie feel crowded, more episodic and more like a TV series than a movie. The comedy was not focused, clever or very comedic. The result were poor efforts such as ‘Spy Hard’, ‘Wrongly Accused’ and even Mel Brooks seemed to be lacking in ‘Dead and Loving It’. Then the Zucker/Abrahams team went their own ways and found little success on their own, gradually making less and less money.
And so, parody movies were dead…. Until the summer of 2000 with ‘Scary Movie’. This one was different, not only did it make fun of horror films it paid special attention to the horror films of recent years to the movie’s release. They didn’t bother to see if the film would stand the test of time, they just went after it specifically while it was still fresh in people’s minds. Watching ‘Airplane!’ today, it’s still funny, watching ‘Scary Movie’, I don’t even remember half of the jokes or references. As well as this they weren’t just going after a specific genre either, sure they had parodies of horror like ‘The Exorcist, ‘The Sixth Sense’, ‘The Shining’ and ‘Scream’. But they also threw out references to ‘Thelma and Louise’, ‘Boogie Nights’ and even ‘Schindler’s List’ (yeah because that’s a subject that’s ripe with potential humor). It also took a leaf out of the ‘American Pie’ book and injected a lot of gross out humor (and I mean really over the top, s**t in your face kind of gross out). But it was a huge success, so regardless of whether its quality rivalled Mel Brooks or not this was how parody movies could be successful again.     
The only problem is it launched imitator after imitator and I will say now, I hate ‘Scar Movie’ even as a singular film. What I hate even more is what it launched, a decade of horrible comedy movies and the worst franchise in cinematic history ‘The Movie Movies’. They were all hastily made, horribly written, terribly acted and deliberately outrageous. By now they were not satirizing any particular film, any specific movie series or even a certain genre. They just threw in references to everything that was popular. None of it was clever or funny. Just look at this as an example, Epic Movie combines satires of ‘Borat’, ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’, ‘Narnia’, ‘X-Men’ and ‘Harry Potter’. What do any of those movies have in common other than the fact that they were all popular in 2007? Then you had ‘Disaster Movie’ that referenced ‘Juno’, ‘Iron Man’, ‘Amy Winehouse’ and ‘Kung Fu Panda’. Finally I’ll give you ‘Vampires Suck’, you’d think it would be pretty easy as there’s a lot of ‘Twilight’ and recent vampire craze related topics to poke fun at. But instead you have references to ‘Saturday Night Fever’, The Kardashians and Barack Obama. Why are they related, does ‘True Blood’ go hand in hand with the President of America, or am I just missing something?
I heard rumors that the writers didn’t even watch the movies they were parodying. They just saw production photos and made it look like that, then threw in every lazy, obvious, easy and zeitgeist related joke they could, maybe throw in an excrement or penis joke while you’re at it. This links in to another massive problem I have with these films, there’s just no love for the source material. Mel Brooks loved westerns and horror movies and even went as far as to ask George Lucas’ permission to make a ‘Star Wars’ parody. With the ‘Movie Movies’ the style just feels, if anything, mostly spiteful, as if the makers are hoping to use their films to demean the work of more talented filmmakers. Whereas the Zukcer Brothers had an affectionate and appreciating attitude towards their source material, they seem to make movies out of disdain, a contempt that they’ll never make anything as good as ‘The Shining’, ‘Inception’ or ‘Pulp Fiction’.
So parody may be dead on film, but it is still alive online. You have great comedy groups like ‘How It Should Have Ended’ or ‘Screen Junkies’ Honest Trailers’. Then there are TV shows like ‘The Daily Show’ and ‘Mock the Week’, or the terrific work Dan Harmon is doing with ‘Community’ and ‘Rick and Morty’. Movie makers could really learn a lesson from them, as the best satires come from a real understanding of your source material, knowing what makes it work to capture its métiers while playfully recognizing its imperfections.

Dead Comedy: Part 1 - The Screwball Comedy

Comedy is a very interesting genre in movies, it’s probably the most diverse and accessible variety of movies that can range from any age group and virtually any style. Think about it, you’ve got a comedy of manners, slapstick, screwball, parody, anarchy, fish out of water, gross out, black-comedy or romantic comedy, then you’ve got the limitless hybrid genres that allows comedy to integrate itself with virtually any kind of film such as action, horror, fantasy, drama or science fiction. Today most of these deviations of comedy are still alive and kicking in cinema today, some may not have their own genre anymore and are merely combined with other forms of humour but for the most part each aspect of that is still present in our modern movies.
However, some of the ones I listed appear to be completely dead and buried and would need a complete overhaul or a great comedic mind to bring them back. This is something I’m going to look at with these articles. The first one seems to be the screwball comedy. Early pioneers of cinema like Howard Hawks and Frank Capra shined in the genre, but today no one seems to make them anymore, the closest thing you’ll find is homage or an assimilated form. What happened?
The screwball genre is defined as being ‘fables of love masquerading as hostility’. Many have drawn parallels with film noir as well, except screwball distinguishes itself with a number of elements such as its comedic tone and its escapist and farcical themes. It’s also a reversal of the stereotypical positions of power put forward by gender roles and social classes. During the Great Depression, there was a general demand for films with a strong social class critique and hopeful, escapist-oriented themes.
All of this basically means that in screwball, the woman dominates the relationship. It challenges the masculinity of the man and makes way for a comedic battle of the sexes involving romance, courtship, bedroom farce and marriage. The question that one may ask here is, why mask those themes under a comedy or film-noir style, why not just make a drama involving them? Three reasons, one was that this was all taking place during the great depression and audiences wanted escapism, not heavy handed emotional rollercoasters. Secondly, women’s suffrage had ended and they now finally had the right to vote so someone immediately had the brilliant idea of capitalising on this by placing the women in their films in positions of power. Thirdly, you had the Hayes Code. This prohibited films touching on the subjects of violence, religion and especially sex. To incorporate the more risqué elements of their films, studios used the genre as a disguise to appease the censorship boards.
How? They used the verbal sparring between two genders as a metaphor for the physical sexual tension between them, a sex comedy without the sex. It was subversive and superbly executed. As time went on though censors began to latch on to what these writers and studios were doing and tried to crack down on them, meaning that the creative minds behind the pictures had to think of increasingly inventive and ingenious ways of conveying innuendo and euphemism without the censors catching on. In other words the screwball writers always had to remain one step ahead of the censors while still making an artistically viable picture and ensuring that it would entertain audiences so it could generate a profit and allow them to do it all over again, talk about a busy workload.    
So the style evolved and developed as any successful genre does. Perhaps the most successful screwball director was Ernst Lubitsch, who crafted many of the standouts of the genre such as ‘Trouble in Paradise’, ‘If I Had A Million’ and ‘That Uncertain Feeling’. Then you had ‘The Philadelphia Story’ or ‘Bringing Up Baby’ and ‘His Girl Friday’. Even legendary director Alfred Hitchcock dabbled in the screwball genre with ‘Mr and Mrs Smith’.
Then a new generation came to take up the genre and the biggest name of this screwball era was Billy Wilder. He basically built his early career off of this genre, especially with his very first American movie ‘The Major and the Minor’. This movie revolved around a young woman that quits her career to return home but only has enough oney for a child’s ticket and therefore does the logical thing of posing as a schoolgirl only to become entangled with a Major who is increasingly worried by his attraction to what he believes is a young schoolgirl. So as the word Major in the title takes on a different meaning you can already guess what its accompanying noun was referring to, let’s move on before this becomes any more awkward. Wilder even used screwball in his more dramatic work like ‘Sunset Boulevard’ in which a struggling screenwriter agrees to assist an aging actress get her career back on track.
Wilder then made a direct return to the genre in 1959 with ‘Some Like it Hot’, the greatest cross dressing film of all time (sorry ‘Rocky Horror Picture Show’). Named by the American Film Institute as the greatest comedy movie of all time and the quintessential screwball comedy, Wilder even set it twenty years ago during the thirties in order to make the environment more in tune with the screwball themes. Two musicians witness a gangland murder and must hide out by disguising themselves as women, though it pretends to have commentary on violence and greed, make no mistake, this movie is about sex. It’s only become more obvious as time goes on, becoming blatantly subversive (contradiction in terms) and starred the ultimate iconic sex symbol herself Marylyn Monroe. Trust me, watch the movie and make it a fun drinking game by taking a shot with every euphemism and innuendo you see.
So with the genre this successful, why did it die? Simply because as Bob Dylanput it the next decade, the times they are a changin’. Censorship in movies is a thing of the past by the time the 1960s roll around and now filmmakers don’t need to disguise the sexual tension in their movies, they can just outright show it. Nothing was off limits any more, with rating systems it meant that appropriate audiences could see appropriate films so there was no need to have a sex comedy without sex. So the screwball comedy is well and truly dead.
That’s not to say that the genre is completely buried. There are still various homages and tributes to the type, the work of Billy Wilder can still be watched and appreciated today and most of the individual artistic choices are still being used today in some form. The genre died out not because audiences grew board with it or the quality began to dip, but the change in cinematic society rendered it irrelevant.

Which Director is the Worst; Bay or Shyamalan?

So ‘The Visit’ is hitting theatres son and once again it appears that you would need to hire an undercover detective team to find out that it has been directed by none other than M Night Shyamalan, the director that everyone loves to hate. In fact only one director seems to be rivalling him for the spot of the worst high profile director working today, Michael (explosion) Bay. But who is the worst?
Well looking past the actual quality of their films and focussing more on the money they make, Michael Bay is miles ahead. Shyamalan has had one commercial failure after another, to such a point where the studios will try their best to make sure you don’t know that he’s directing it. I never heard his name mentioned once in the advertising campaign for ‘After Earth’ while Bay has been openly associated with every project he’s involved with, Bay didn’t direct ‘Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles’ but his name was the one that dominated the trailers. Even with that modest opening day, word of mouth spread so quickly that the film was dropping in the movie gross charts by day, starting at one, and finishing at number nine by the end of the week. Bay on the other hand has maintained a steady income from his films, a huge one in fact as, annoyingly, ‘Transformers: Age of Multiple Explosions’ was the highest grossing film of 2014, and Bay did the same thing with ‘That asteroid movie that wasn’t Deep Impact’ back in’ 1998.
But it’s for that reason that many will say he is worse as he seems to make films purely for the money, not to get any kind of artistic expression from it. He has been making the same kind of film for the past two decades, lots of action, little plot, sorted. Even his best film ‘The Rock’ was certainly not as complex as Shyamalan’s best effort ‘The Sixth Sense’.
Though that may not be a fair comparison, as both of them were good, and are now bad, for very different reasons. To the average movie goer the worst one will probably be Shyamalan, as Bay’s movies are still sort of fun. ‘The Rock’ and the ‘Bad Boys’ films are certainly fun to watch and there’s some very small enjoyment to have in the ‘Transformers’ franchise and ‘Pain and Gain’ but only on the lowest common denominator, and if you try to watch them back to back you will be left catatonic by the multiple and never ending explosions, stereotypes and revolving shots.
Shyamalan on the other hand is notorious for making arthouse films that aren’t well reviewed, so is there any point in branding them arthouse anymore? Bay has always said that he makes films for audiences and not critics, but with Shyamalan’s movies, if you can’t get good reviews surely there’s no point. ‘The Village’ was a failed psychological thriller and ‘The Lady in the Water’ was one of the worst attempts at a dark fantasy ever, it felt like something Guilmero Del Toro had left on the cutting room floor and the cleaner had assembled them with whatever was left.
Also, Bay was held up as a good action director at one point, and criticised for never doing anything new. But ‘The Sixth Sense’ was held up as one of the greatest horror movies of the modern age and many were calling its director ‘The next Spielberg’. When you think about how far Shyamalan has fallen in comparison to his potential, it’s quite staggering.  
‘The Sixth Sense’ of course is mainly associated with its final twist and this brings me on to another point. While Bay is known for a number of cheap traits such as racial and sexual stereotypes, explosions and his frantic editing pace. Shyamalan meanwhile is linked with one thing, a twist. Nearly every film has featured a twist and none of them have topped ‘The Sixth Sense’, instead they are viewed as cheap, exploitive and simply bad. The twist in ‘Signs’ ruined that movie for me (invading aliens turn out to be vulnerable to water, having invaded a planet that is 60% water), in ‘The Village’ this Victorian era community is actually in the modern world, somehow.
But when he tries to do a film without a plot twist they are equally as bad. Look at ‘Lady in the Water’. This film stars Shyamalan as a writer who is destined to save the world through beautiful writing, really? That’s like Scorsese casting himself as Henry Hill, or Francis Ford Coppola casting himself as Don Corleone. Then in ‘After Earth’ the plot (which he didn’t write to be fair) was nonsensical and riddles with obvious directing. ‘The Happening’ is the worst attempt as a horror film in recent memory, working better as the best unintentional comedy in recent years. Then you have the atrocity that is ‘The Last Airbender’, in which he is not only running his own material, but butchering material that had legions of followers and admirers that were hoping for a great movie.
However, most of these films are original, they are original ideas in an age where more and more people are criticising Hollywood for having no original ideas. What’s more is the fact that however bad they are I wouldn’t say Shyamalan is a lazy filmmaker. Bay on the other hand has been making the same ideas with the same unoriginal concepts and the same clichés over and over again. Shyamalan has dabbled in horror, neo-noir, science fiction, fantasy and though most have been terrible, most have also been unique. Not only are all of Bay’s films the same none of them are really original. We all know ‘Transformers’ was based on a toy and cartoon series, then you have ‘Pain and Gain’ which many people are surprised about to hear was an original story as the callousness with which he treats real murder and crime is almost laughable. Then there's 'Pearl Harbour', when Spielberg made a war film he made it loom realistic, Bay made a war film to make it look cool and sacrificed all authenticity, dramatic potential and quality in the process. There’s also no risk to his movies, I know that this is going to be another big dumb nonsensical action film before I see it, maybe, just maybe with M Night Shyamalan his next film is a return to form, because he’s trying new things and taking chances. True, many are horrifically awful, and I would rather watch ‘Pain and Gain’ twenty times than go through ‘The Last Airbender’ again, but I’m still going to see ‘The Visit’ because there’s a chance that it could surprise me. But let me close this debate with a cool and refreshing bottle of Bud-Light, see what I'm doing, product placement, another reason why Michael Bay is terrible.
So those are some ramblings but out of these two, who do you think is the worst director? Let me know in the comments below. Thanks and bye.