What if Feelings had Feelings?

Pixar Animation Studios are renown for their high-quality, tear inducing, heart jerking, comedy films. Very few studios, live action or animated, can create films with the emotional resonance that Pixar can create; no one can make us feel like Pixar makes us feel. But this year, Pixar explored our feelings further by personifying them. This is Inside Out.

Riley (Kaitlyn Dias) is a typical 11 year old girl. She plays hockey, doesn't like broccoli, and is a complete goofball. These are some of the foundations of her personality formed by her core memories. Inside her head, the formation of these memories, and the way Riley acts, are controlled by five emotions: Joy (Amy Poehler), Anger (Lewis Black), Fear (Bill Hader), Disgust (Mindy Kaling), and Sadness (Phyllis Smith). Joy tends to run things and all of Riley's core memories glow yellow with joy, or at least until Riley's family suddenly move across the country to San Fransisco and Riley's first sad core memory is formed. Wanting to keep the core memories happy, Joy tries to stop the memory before it becomes part of Riley's personality but instead dislodges all of the core memories and they are sucked into long term memory along with Joy and Sadness. Together, the unlikely duo must make their way back to the control room with the core memories before Riley causes irreparable damage to her relationships and is left emotionally empty, devoid of personality.

From left to right: Bing Bong, Sadness, and Joy

As always, Pixar's animation is still leading the way in 3D, computer generated animation. Inside Out continues to push the boundaries of what is possible in the medium. One sequence, when Joy, Sadness, and Riley's old imaginary friend Bing Bong (Richard Kind) are passing through the abstract thought area, they are reduced to a cubist incarnation of themselves before being flattened to two dimensions. Pixar's imagination is shown in full force here, creating a whole world inside of Riley's mind that is full of innovative landscapes that, despite their scope, never drift into absurdity. Even the most ridiculous of characters, Bing Bong, an elephant-chicken-dolphin hybrid made of cotton candy with a rocket  powered by song, is treated seriously and plays a pivotal role in the narrative. It would be so easy for a secondary character like Bing Bong to be played for laughs, but Pixar treat all of their creations with care, attention, and development to make sure that their story is as three-dimensional as their animation.

From left to right: Sadness, Anger, Fear, Disgust, and Joy

After over five years in the making, Inside Out is Pixar's labour of love and it shows. The films has been precisely crafted with equal parts fun, heart, and brain. The production team consulted with psychologists and other experts to ensure their fantasy world fit within the way the mind really works whilst the animators brought this vision to life in a vibrant fashion. The writing, too, is perhaps some of Pixar's finest yet. Not only is it completely hilarious, riddled with smart humour, but it is an extremely moving tale of growing up, dealing with sadness, and coping with change. The level of passion displayed in the production of Inside Out combined with the vocal talent of Poehler, Smith, Kaling, Kind, Hader, and Black, creates a completely remarkable, genuinely entertaining, and utterly moving piece of cinema. It is no surprise that it is now being discussed in terms of educating children about mental health.

Pixar have hit the ball out of the park with Inside Out. After three efforts in a row not quite hitting the Pixar standard that audiences have become accustom to (Cars 2, Brave, Monsters University), Inside Out proves that Pixar have not lost what makes them so special and that they are still the most innovative animation company out there.

Best Bit? Aside from the trip through abstract thought, which is a particular highlight, the time spent in dream production, styled as a classic holiday studio, is exceptionally funny.

Hit the Road, Max

There are only a few words in the English language that make a film fan's skin crawl. Perhaps the most notable is the term 'sequel', but maybe 'remake' and 'reboot' are also among those that induce a shiver of fear to run down one's spine. But what about a 'revisiting'? This is Mad Max: Fury Road.


In a post-apocalyptic wasteland, it is survival of the fittest and despite his best efforts, Max Rockatansky (Tom Hardy) ends up being kidnapped by a group of 'War Boys' to become a human blood bag. But when the leader of the War Boys, Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne), sends one of his war leaders, Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), to Gas Town on a supply run and she betrays him by fleeing with his prize wives, the War Boys are summoned to bring them back. One War Boy, Nux (Nicholas Hoult), brings Max, his new blood bag, along for the ride. With Max fighting to survive and Furiosa fighting to escape, the two join forces in the car chase to end all car chases.

Tom Hardy as Max

In 1979, George Miller created a legend in Max and solidified that status with two more films, fashioning an icon of the post-apocalyptic genre. After a stint in development hell, Fury Road attempts to do the nigh on impossible: to continue building Max's legendary status with a new actor filling his leather, diesel-punk attire. James Bond and Doctor Who were successful with it, so why not Mad Max? Tom Hardy has absolutely no difficulty in immediately capturing Max's essence; his kind nature compromised by a drive to survive and his mind riddled with the guilt from those he could not save. But be clear, this is not Max's film. Fury Road is Furiosa's film. Theron is the driving force of the movie and its emotional core. Her performance grounds an otherwise wild ride into being more than just another mindless action. She gives the film its heart, its soul, and also its bite.

Charlize Theron as Furiosa

The success of Fury Road lies not in its story or performances alone. With Mad Max, George Miller did not just create a character, he created a world - a world that needed rebuilding and adjusting for Fury Road. Here, Miller shows us that the wasteland has got more brutal, more baron, but it is the same landscape as before. The road gangs are now war cults, the shortage is now of water. The production design tells just as much story as the characters or the plot - we see see a vision of the human race reduced to its most primitive and in desperate need to adapt to survive. But director of photography, John Seale, makes it strangely beautiful, leading to some of the most entrancing cinematography of the year. The same too should be said of editor Margaret Sixel. With Seale's centre framing and Sixel's editing, the film, consisting almost entirely of action, became captivating to watch. The audience was drawn into the wasteland and taken on an exhilarating journey.

Incredible stunt coordination with the 'Polecats'

And on that note, it seems absolutely vital to discuss the stunt work that went into creating this film. Action films are defined by the scale of their action and for Fury Road, this scale seems endless. Nothing is done in halves and no type of action takes precedence over another. The hand to hand combat is just as effective as the driving, the ariel work is as thrilling as the explosions. Every element of the action comes together to form a ferocious and entrancing thrill ride through the apocalyptic desert.

Mad Max: Fury Road is, simply put, the most outstanding film of the year. Not only is it excellently made in every aspect, but it is unlike anything else in its genre. It blows away the competition in its own market as well as subverting expectations of action films and firmly making a name for itself amongst the serious award contenders for 2015.

Best Bit? It is rare I say this but the film's standard almost never drops below a certain point. Its consistency is incredible. So don your leather jacket, prepare to enter Valhalla, scream 'What a lovely lovely day!', and watch this movie.

Scary Saturday: Promiscuity Kills

Recently, I discussed the successes of certain horror films and what makes a 'good' horror (the article can be read here). Today is a day dedicated to some of the modern examples of the genre. So I ask you this question: would you rather be chased by a hungry lion for an hour or a giant, deadly snail for the rest of your life? This is one of my personal favourite 'would you rather' questions. The slow snail seems like an inviting option however there is the constant knowledge that it is coming for you. You can always run, but eventually it will catch up. Today's film explores a similar topic. This is It Follows. 

Jay (Maika Monroe) is your normal 19-year-old girl. She goes to school, she enjoys swimming in her pool, she likes boys. She has sex with one boy in particular, Hugh (Jake Weary), in the back of his car after a date. Nothing out of the ordinary here. Well, that is until Hugh covers her mouth with a cloth and knocks her out. Suddenly, Jay is introduced to her new life; a life in which she is always being chased by something. Whatever it is, it has the ability to appear as anyone and if it catches you, you die. It can be passed on to another person by having sex with them, but if they die, it comes back after you. Oh, and it can only walk, never run. With her group of slightly awkward school friends, Jay has to fight both a battle for her life, and a moral battle: does she keep running or does she knowingly inflict her curse on someone else?

From the moment It Follows begins, something terrifying is going on. A girl runs out onto the road in fear wearing next to nothing, before getting into a car and driving as fast as she can away. The next morning, her body is found distorted and bent out of shape. No explanation from the film, just the notion that whatever it is, it is bad. What follows is the world's most beautifully shot, slow motion foot chase. The brilliance of it is that it could be anyone of the extras in the background, any one of her friends, any person on the street. The ominous notion that anyone could be trying to kill you means it has to be treated as everyone is trying to kill you, which is an isolating and lonely experience. Not to mention that it appears in all sorts of nasty ways: a staring naked man, a girl urinating on herself, a young boy with hollow eyes. It Follows has no need for guts and gore, it relies on suspense and shock.

The intrigue of It Follows is in its layers. One part The Breakfast Club, one part Halloween, David Robert Mitchell's take on a coming-of-age tale is suspenseful, but also deeply warming. There is more than just a scary story here, there is a deep core structured around friendships. Jay's friends, particularly Paul (Keir Gilchrist), don't write her off as crazy. Immediately they want to help her resolve whatever the situation is, even if it makes no sense. But do not underestimate the horror value because of this. We join Jay in the unique perspective of being the only person in the group that can see it, and because of this, the film can utilise dramatic irony freely and effectively. At one point a looming figure walks through the doorway with some of the teenagers who are completely unaware of his presence. But we are, and we share in Jay's fear. The film doesn't makes little use of jump scares, it prefers to keep the audience constantly in the know, along with Jay, but also positioning her, and therefore us, somewhere in which it is impossible to help the situation. It's emotionally draining and completely chilling.
An excellent demonstration of what the horror genre can still offer. Something smart, charming, and ultimately rather scary. A refreshing breath of ingenuity and originality into the female-led horror cliches places It Follows well above its competition. It is modern, it is fun, and it is exciting.

Best Bit? The group head to the beach to put some distance between them and it, but soon enough Yara, Jay's sister, is in two different places at once. And one Yara is walking very slowly towards Jay.

Scary Saturday: Bad Book

Recently, I discussed the successes of certain horror films and what makes a 'good' horror (the article can be read here). Today is a day dedicated to some of the modern examples of the genre. First up is a film that came out of the land of Australia and took one of the oldest fears and gave it a little update. The monster under the bed has never been so scary. This is The Babadook.

Motherhood can be hard, but for widowed mother Amelia (Essie Davis) it is nigh on impossible. Samuel (Noah Wiseman), her son, is terrified of monsters under his bed and is insistent that he is going to catch them and kill them. It gets to the point where he makes weapons and takes them to school with him leading to his suspension. Amelia has to cope with an increasing lack of sleep trying to control him and bedtime stories just cannot cut it. One of these stories is a pop-up book telling the tale of the Babadook, a terrifying monster that kills non-believers. Naturally, this does nothing to help Samuel's fears, but Amelia starts to experience things that make her question the irrationality of being scared of the Babadook.

They say never work with animals or children but Noah Wiseman proves that rule is absolute nonsense, or at least half of it is. Without a doubt, the most chilling scenes of the film are rooted in Wiseman's performance. Shrieking in the back of the car, shouting at an unseen threat, Wiseman raises the hair on your arms and the back of your neck. Essie Davis, too, descends brilliantly into madness with her son. As the Babadook becomes more powerful, the conflicts between mother and son heighten in intensity thanks to the pair's impeccable acting ability.

Simply one of the most haunting films since Paranormal Activity and easily more chilling. Probably the best horror movie of the decade so far with the downright scariest monster since your childhood nightmare. Rather than convince you the bogeyman doesn't exist, director Jennifer Kent shoves you in the wardrobe with it and chains the door shut. The Babadook is an inescapable journey into insanity that you, the viewer, are also partaking in. The nature of the creature is left ambiguous, shrouded in mystery, and the audience have to suffer the uncertainty of what exactly it can do. It's not a poltergeist, nor does it seem to be a physical entity. It is a psychologically torturous being that penetrates into the mind of the character and spectator alike.

The Babadook is not only one of the finest horror films since the turn of the millennium, but in a world of reboots and sequels, it has brought a new and original sense of fear back into the cinema.

Best Bit? Samuel screaming in the back of the car before coming to a sudden, staring silence. There's a presence with him but we can't see it. It's the middle of the day. The Babadook does not work in the confines of darkness, he is there constantly; we just can't see it... yet.

Stunts: The Argument for Academy Recognition

The Oscars are the highlight of the film calendar for many, this blogger included, and brings out all of the glitz and glamour of Hollywood for one night. On this night, The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences present awards for the best of the best in every category in film making for the year. But are they missing one of the most crucial, demanding, and creative aspects of film making in the contemporary world?

Stunt work is by no means a small part of film making, just look at that list of names under 'Stunts' in the credits of the next blockbuster you see. Every time a car crashes, a fight breaks out, or someone jumps the gap between two buildings, there was a stunt person behind it and a stunt coordinator behind them. It is also not a new development in film making. The works of Buster Keaton are littered with jaw dropping stunts way before the days of CGI or stringent safety rules. So if stunt work has been so fundamental to cinema since its inception, why is it not recognised at the Academy level that everything else in film is?

Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation

The debate around an Oscar for stunt work has been around for a while, spearheaded mostly by stunt coordinator Jack Gill. For almost 25 years Gill has presented his case to the Board of Governors of the Academy and gets turned down year after year. He doesn't even mind if the award is part of the televised ceremony or not, he just wants recognition for the 'life and blood'1 that he and his colleagues put into their work. After all, their work is evident in almost every film ever. If it is fair for Academy voters to vote for things they do not even understand (see sound editing and mixing2), it seems fitting that they should also vote for something that is so obvious throughout all of cinema. Many films only get their recognition in technical departments, including some of the greatest (Fight Club, The Matrix, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, The Prestige, Die Hard), and these days the technical departments can be a defining feature in making the film great (Gravity, Birdman, The Tree of Life). Stunt work is no different.

Colin Firth and stunt double Rick English on
 the set of Kingsman: The Secret Service

Richard Corliss claimed that Fast Five was the first great 'posthuman' film3. Essentially, it is not the human characters or performers that make the film great, but the stunts; the stunt work has more personality than Vin Diesel's Dom and the story put together. It is an interesting point of view; with the seventh instalment of the franchise destroying the world's box office and crushing the previous film's worldwide gross (by almost $1 billion), there can be no disputing the franchise's success4. And whilst they do not have an Oscar nomination between them, they do have multiple Taurus Awards (the awards for cinematic stunt work) as well as nominations from the Screen Actors Guild for stunt work. Considering Furious 7 is the fifth highest grossing film of all time and is likely to rake in a few Taurus nominations, is it not worthy of Academy notice? Are the Transformers films really more worthy of a gold statuette on their counter5?

Fast and Furious 6

Of course, the Transformers franchise earned academy recognition by being exemplary in two or three areas (sound editing, sound mixing, and visual effects) and it would be demeaning to eliminate them because they were poor films in general. So it seems unfair to ignore the Fast and Furious franchise and similar films because their main appeal lies in excellency of stunt work especially considering their huge success with fans and critics alike. In the same way Michael Bay has expertly utilised visual effects in his films, Moritz and Diesel have incorporated stunts in theirs; they should not be ignored.

Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark

Admittedly, it is getting harder and harder to turn a blind eye to the excellence of stunt work. This year's Mad Max: Fury Road could be used as Gill's portfolio for why stunt work should be recognised by the Academy. The film, which was in essence a two hour car chase, filled its run-time with Chinese pole work on the back of moving cars, meticulously timed motorcycle jumps, and explosive chases with a huge oil tanker. It was also received extremely highly by all of the critics (racking up 98% on Rotten Tomatoes and 89% on Metacritic). Mad Max appears at the same time as many other films associated with the current resurgence of 'practical effects' which is leading films  today to make their stunt choreography bigger, better, and more real; Tom Cruise really is hanging off that plane in the recent Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation6. With the quality of films like Mad Max, Furious 7, and Mission: Impossible 5 being at least somewhat defined by the quality of their stunt work, it is becoming impossible to claim that it is only a minor aspect of today's film making.

Polecats in Mad Max: Fury Road

It is not just the big set pieces that demonstrate stunt work's value to cinema; sky diving, fight sequences, and even rolling down hills require intricate planning and design to make them a reality. These stunts are also more likely to transcend genre too; perfectly choreographed fights, for example, have been utilised in all genres. Look at the comedy violence of Jackie Chan or of The World's End, to the fist fights in Skyfall, to the ultra-violent ways of the recent Kingsman: The Secret Service or Tarantino's films. Tarantino may keep winning Oscars7 for writing but the people who bring his brutal screenplays to life are being forgotten. But not their work. Mike Smith, a veteran stunt man and now stunt co-ordinator points out the absurdity:

'Here’s how ridiculous this is: They give an Oscar for Makeup and Hair, but when there is advertising to get the movies sold they are not showing the makeup and hair, they are showing the action shots. They are trying to get people to come in and sit in your theatre'8.

It's almost plagiarism. Stunt coordinators design the stunt, stunt men and women perform it, the director puts it in the trailer, the trailer brings the audience in, the film gets praised for being successful but the people who made it successful, that risk their life and limb for their art, are left behind. Those guys that flipped a truck in The Dark Knight, the polecats in Mad Max, the stunt double for Harrison Ford who clambers around a truck in Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, their work is featured in the trailers for the films but their name is not up in lights. Why?

Harrison Ford and stunt double Vic Armstrong.
The writing reads: Vic - If you learn to talk I'm in deep trouble! 

Stunt work is driven by a stunt team's passion. Passion for the work they do, but also for the films they help make. The sort of passion that can bring George Miller close to tears9, the sort of passion that leads you to carry on despite injuries (Keaton broke his neck doing the water tower stunt in Sherlock Jr.10, Jackie Chan has broken nearly everything in his body over his career11), the sort of passion that encourages you to keep going in the face of rejection from the Academy for 25 years when other proposed categories stopped after one try (looking at you Best Casting and Best Title Design). That sort of passion needs acknowledgement. If dance direction had its own Academy Award when dance films were peaking in the 30s, shouldn't a category that has been out-doing itself for decades finally, finally get the recognition it deserves?

Let me know what you think in the comments below. Are there any particular films that you think deserve an Oscar for stunt work? Or should individual stunts be nominated? Let the discussion commence.


Some references:

1: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21460202
2: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/brutally-honest-oscar-ballot-no-773906 and http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/2015s-brutally-honest-oscar-ballot-773904
3: http://time.com/3833900/fast-five-movie-review/
4: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=fast7.htm
5: Seven oscar nominations between them - three Best Sound Mixing, two Best Sound Editing, two Best Visual Effects.
6: http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/4/9094383/practical-effects-cgi-mission-impossible-mad-max-star-wars
7: Five nominations - three Best Original Screenplay and two Best Director with two wins for writing.
8: http://deadline.com/2015/04/furious-7-oscar-stunts-category-1201404243/
9: https://www.yahoo.com/movies/mad-max-best-stunts-george-miller-video-george-118822832522.html
10: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl6xs-BSpIo
11: http://kotaku.com/jackie-chans-major-injuries-a-catalogue-of-pain-461465578

Dead or Alive? The Horror of the Horror Genre

What scares you? This is the question that the horror genre has been trying desperately to answer and exploit since the 20s (and many would argue before). In the last twenty years alone, the average horror grossed $19,048,963 which is around two and a half times the amount of the average drama - the genre with the most films produced each year.1 So, considering that on average horrors earn more than dramas, comedies, and rom-coms, why is the horror genre victim to constant sequels, spin offs, and re-makes?  Looking back over the last twenty years again,  of the top grossing horror films each year, eleven are sequels or prequels, two are spin offs, and two are English language remakes.  Apart from the Twilight franchise, the drama genre has none of the above. Is there no originality left in horror? Do people only want to see Freddy invade more dreams, or more paranormal activity? What makes a good horror film and is that different to a successful one?

The Paranormal Activity films held the top spot of the
 horror box office for four years from 2009 until 2012

A while ago I examined a similar question focusing on the comedy genre, begging the argument between comedy and quality. Like that debate, with horror, not only is there a question of quality and 'scariness', but also of box office success. Paranormal Activity 4, for example, topped the horror box office, just like its three predecessors,  but was a critical failure. And, unlike the third and first instalments of the franchise, was lacking in a scare factor.2 A quick Google search for 'Best Horror Films' will immediately treat you to the 'Best' horror films, the 'Scariest' horror films, and the 'Creepiest' horror films. What's the difference, if there is one? Is the best horror film the scariest, the one that does best at the box office, the one the critics love the most, or the creepiest? The answer seems to be none of them.

Like comedy, fear is subjective. George A. Romero, father of the zombie genre and all round horror genius, says: ‘I don’t know why we love these movies so much. It must be an involuntary response. Why does a joke make you laugh? It’s the same thing with a scare.’3 Returning to the original question of this article, horror aims to scare you. What scares you is different to what scares me; what scares this generation is different to what scared the last. Look at the trends in horror films over the decades: nuclear and cold war fears in the 50s and 60s, 'Hyperpostmodernism'4 in the current age. Horror tries to capture the current anxieties of the time, but without a single universal fear today - as Tyler Durden so brilliantly put it 'We have no great war. No great depression'5 - the horror genre has to try grab any zeitgeist it can get its hands on.

Saw's success saw its sequels top the
horror box office in 2005, 2006, and 2008.

Without a universal fear to capitalise on, the most successful horrors of the 21st century have been those that will still manage to scare the majority. The Paranormal Activity films show things going bump in the night, using unexpected jump scares to keep its audience on edge, whilst the Saw franchise simply made their sequels so bloody that most movie-goers would have to watch through their fingers. But are these just cheap thrills designed to appeal to the sofa-dwelling adrenaline junkie? As Ben Wheatley (director of the fantastic A Field in England) says 'With horror you want to feel afraid, because you can do it without consequences.'6  Do these films actually make us afraid, or do they just make us jump and feel squeamish? Is there no more building suspense to an exasperating climax, no more looming dread? Just think, how many jump scares did 'King of Horror' Alfred Hitchcock use per film?

Hitchcock describes it better than I can; tension causes the audience to engage emotionally whilst jump scares cause a brief rush of adrenaline. Often, and this is particularly evident in the Paranormal Activity sequels, the innovation of jump scares takes priority over creating a solid narrative for a film which leaves the audience little to connect with. Perhaps this is where horror has fallen down; it sacrifices structure for scares. Even in Ancient Greece, Aristotle's Poetics lists plot and character as the most important aspects of tragic storytelling, yet rates spectacle as the least important. In horror, isolated moments of fear followed by dialogue-heavy stretches with undeveloped characters may make us scream embarrassingly loudly in the cinema, but how often do we leave appreciating the whole film rather than the spectacular moment? Or is this the 'Post-Human Era' of film that Richard Corliss spoke about where the set pieces matter more than the script?7

Oculus entered the box-office at number 3 but
dropped out of the top 10 in under two weeks.

But this box-office topping era of Post-Humanist film making has not taken its toll on all films in the genre. Every year hosts of narrative and character driven horrors are released but are often independently funded, meaning they get a limited release. Without a star or gimmick (i.e. 'Based on a true story') to attach to their marketing, the films go undetected by the masses. See, for example, the recent films The Babadook or It Follows which have received critical acclaim and high recommendation. Of course, that recommendation is only good if you are lucky enough to find somewhere showing it. But even the mainstream suffers from lack of exposure. Look at 2013's Oculus, which managed to have Karen Gillan (pre-Guardians of the Galaxy) as the lead. But despite the film's strong psychological fear factor and positive reviews, the film was forgotten about almost instantly. Perhaps a Doctor Who star does not a Hollywood star make. With no star to advertise with, the film had trouble filling the seats of the cinema. Is a horror's success based on how marketable it is? In which case we come back to money.

Australian horror The Babadook took the critics by storm.

The Babadook grossed less than $5,000,0008 worldwide and yet has racked up a 98% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and a fantastic 86 on Metacritic. To compare, we can look at some of the better marketed films which turned into box office success. For example, James Wan's films Insidious, Insidious: Chapter 2, (both produced by Oren Peli of Paranormal Activity) and The Conjuring all use his success with Saw in their marketing. Insidious can even claim to be by the creators of Saw and Paranormal Activity while The Conjuring can use Insidious' success too. Not to mention that all of these films had star leads (like the Oscar nominated Vera Farmiga and Barbara Hershey, as well as Golden Globe nominee Patrick Wilson). The difference between Babadook and Conjuring? Somewhere in the region of $310,000,0009 in worldwide grossing.

Of course, The Conjuring was a genuinely good film (as was the first act of Insidious before it drifted into a strange limbo-type realm) and deserved its financial gain. Its success promoted its critically slammed spin-off, Annabelle to the top of 2014's horror box office. So if marketing can explain the box-office trends, we have finally gathered evidence to prove something. That you need to spend money to make money. And that is what these countless sequels have: money. Whilst The Babadook is a better film than both The Conjuring and Insidious, you probably just never got the chance to see it. So has the horror genre lost its variety and quality? Is it doomed to forever be subject to sequels, remakes, and spin-offs? No, that is just what makes money. The horror genre is still alive and well and as varied as ever. For every blockbuster horror hit that gains a list of sequels, there will be several original and excellent pieces of horror cinema out there to scare yourself with.

From Saw to The Conjuring, James Wan's
creations continue to dominate the horror box office.

If a successful horror is to do with subjective fear, then this ultimate question of 'What makes a good horror?' cannot be answered. But rather than despair at the state of the horror genre, film fans should become pro-active in finding films that scare them. To bring back what Wheatley said, horror allows us to be scared free of consequence. If it is blood and gore that scares you, perhaps try Martyrs over Saw V. If you like psychological horror or films that play with your mind, maybe A Field in England would suit you. Or do you like satire? If so, you have Cabin in the Woods, You're Next, or the hilarious Tucker and Dale vs Evil. Maybe you prefer an even more niche market and you want found-footage satire with genuine scares. Try Grave Encounters. All of these films are from the last five years and are a small selection of what is out there.

But what scares you? Are you still in despair over horror films? Or do you just want a recommendation that will suit your particular set of phobias and fears. Leave a comment below and, in the words of Mike Enslin, 'Stay scared!'10


Some references:

1: Statistics from: http://www.the-numbers.com/market/genres
2: Read what I thought here: http://philspointlessblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/paranormal-actrilogy.html
3: Quoted in: http://www.timeout.com/london/film/why-do-we-love-scary-movies?package_page=44205
4: Wee, V (2005) ‘The Scream Trilogy, "Hyperpostmodernism," and the Late-Nineties Teen Slasher Film.’ Journal of Film and Video Volume 57 (Issue 3): Pages 44-61
5: Fight Club (1999) Directed by: David Fincher
6: Quoted in: http://www.timeout.com/london/film/why-do-we-love-scary-movies?package_page=44205
7: Corliss, R (2011) http://time.com/3833900/fast-five-movie-review/
8: Statistics from: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=babadook.htm
9: Statistics from: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=conjuring.htm
10: 1408 (2007) Directed by: Mikael Håfström

Follow Phil on Twitter: https://twitter.com/philrowlandson

MLK

Equality. It started as a dream. A dream voiced by one man as he led the oppressed masses in rising against the powers that held them down. That man was Dr Martin Luther King Jr., and today's film tells some of his story. This is Selma.

King (David Oyelowo), King's dream is being held back by voting laws in Southern USA. President Johnson (Tom Wilkinson) is reluctant to take immediate action and Gov. George Wallace (Tim Roth) has riddled the voting system with all sorts of hoops for the black community to jump through if they want to cast a ballot. For King, this does not stand. With James Bevel (Common) and Hosea Williams (Wendell Pierce) he begins to plan marches from Selma to Montgomery to protest. But with the FBI watching King's every move and the hostile Alabama police force doing everything they can to prevent the protesters getting what they want, simply marching between two places becomes a life or death situation.

King apparently briefly dressed for work on the railroads

If there is something to be outraged about regarding Selma it is perhaps the lack of nominations for performances. Oyelowo, particularly, stood out as Martin Luther King, a voice known throughout the world, a face plastered across any equality movement. He does not just portray the doctor, he becomes him. At points, it is hard to tell if archival sound and video are used as he is so convincing in the role. Supported by a powerful ensemble, both as friends of King and as obstacles to overcome, Selma excels in representing a community. A community consumed with rage and anger, which is felt in the audience. The silence broken only by the sound of a police baton striking flesh encourages an enraged response, much like the clergy that viewed the hostility towards the peaceful protesters in 1965. We are drawn in to feel the upset of the characters on screen.

The importance of Selma today

Selma, as many successful biopics do, tells the story of a game changer. The marches portrayed pushed the president to take action, signing the voting act. Where it draws it strongest power, however, is in its continuing relevance in the United States today. Released in the year of numerous racial controversies (the Ferguson shooting, Tamir Rice's death, the chokehold that killed Eric Garner, the hashtags #icantbreathe and #blacklivesmatter), the film says, 'This is still important. We still fight these battles', a message captured brilliantly in Common and John Legend's 'Glory', a message which old white Oscar voters are offended by. Selma does more than tell a story, it holds up a mirror. Ava DuVernay has not only done justice to an important historical event, he has tapped into something topical and somewhat unnerving.

Selma is an important film. At times it moves a little slowly and drags around many scenes of King's personal life, but its set pieces are captivating, engaging, and upsetting.

Best Bit? The protesters sit, hands on their heads, knowing that the police will get violent. It is still, it is tense. It is powerful.