Not Coming to a Theater Near You

House of 1000 Corpses / USA / 2003

Along with The Devil’s Rejects opening night double-feature in Reverse Shot’s weeklong program of the best features of 2005.

e exercises are at least good for a few hearty, knowing chuckles, but few are as genuinely unnerving and unpleasant as this one. Playing upon and updating many of the social stereotypes common to such films, Zombie clearly relishes the idea of setting backward, backwood country-folk against fanboy nerds. Perhaps my more horror-versed colleagues will disagree, but it seems to me that herein lies the paradoxical and cyclical nature of shock and horror. The film’s bourgeois horror fanboys, in search of sinister simulacra, receive a zap of real nastiness (being tortured, operated upon, and sutured to a fish) at the hands of inbred freaks and/or evil doctors; this, in turn, feeds the appetites for blood and dismemberment of the fanboys watching the film; the cycle continues.

Debate, if you like, the social value of such a cycle of shock, but I, for one, was appalled out of my complacency. I went into this suspecting that the number 1,000 was hyperbolic. It isn’t.

by Leo Goldsmith | Source: Lion’s Gate 35mm Print
23 Apr 2006 3:09 PM | Comments (4)

Comments / 4 total / Submit Comment

1. thomas / 23 April 2006 / 7:07 PM / URL

   While I agree that the closing scene in Rejects (and the ice cream scene of course) is wonderful stuff, of the two films I greatly prefer Corpses. Where Rejects grinds to a halt in many places, particularly the unpleasent motel room torture sequence, Corpses moves along at a brisk pace throughout, pulling us deeper and deeper into this bizarre and terrifying universe. Blood and guts aside, there is an enticing element of the unknown at work, and when we finally reach the epicenter of evil, I was genuinely curious as to what would be revealed.

   With Rejects, the mystery no longer exists. Instead of torture as an integral plot element, we now have torture as an end unto itself. And while it is interesting to watch a horror flick that delves so deeply into the killer’s personal lives, the trials and tribulations of a demented and muderous clan doesn’t keep me on the edge of my seat for long.

2. leo / 23 April 2006 / 8:02 PM / URL

   That’s an interesting take on the films, and perhaps not surprising, as House of 1000 Corpses is in many ways the “purer” film. But, as you note, the characters are a lot more fully developed in the second film, and I imagine that’s what appeals to most people. Still, I think that the general tendency to valorize Rejects over Corpses is a little misguided and tends to dismiss what is nonetheless a highly entertaining (and compellingly repugnant) debut film.

3. leo / 23 April 2006 / 8:25 PM / URL

   Actually, to respond to one of Thomas’s points, I would say that I found a remarkable dearth of “the unknown” in both films. In fact, while highly shocking and even disturbing, neither film actually scared me very much. Perhaps this is why I prefer the latter film: the decidedly unpleasant motel-room torture sequence at very least placed the action in a context of real-world terror.

   To my mind, and at the risk of craven self-promotion, I find this invocation of the unknown to be far more terrifying.

4. thomas / 23 April 2006 / 8:50 PM / URL

   I do see your point about the motel room scene contextualizing the horror as a real-world event, and I’m sure if I were in the position of the unfortunate victims, I wouldn’t be too happy about my lot in life. But to my way of thinking, waiting for the shoe to drop in the motel room cannot compare to approaching the closed door at the end of a dank underground passageway. With the former, you know, more or less, what you’re going to get. With the latter, anything is possible. But I agree that the films aren’t really scary, though they are disturbing.

   As is that image.