| Author | Message | ||
     Almills (Almills) Username: Almills Registered: 05-2010 Posted From: 72.89.245.7 |
Has anyone seen the new James Wan, Insidious? I'm not sure if it's advertised or released yet in the UK (I'm in NYC). I'm not spoiling much, but it spins the typical "haunted house/possessed child" story into "astral projection & possession." I got excited, because I think it's a delightfully unexplored plot subject. And of course, I immediately thought of Campbell's The Parasite aka To Wake the Dead. Well, I thought Wan's movie was laughably absurd & gratuitous in parts-- perhaps because the design of "astral projection" is extremely difficult, existing in such metaphysical terms. Campbell succeeded in detailing the science and its fantastical (& nightmarish) experience, but I think Wan's vision sells out with a "whatever shocks" attitude. Like Stephen King's theory on how "the monster's scariest behind a closed the door," (Danse Macabre), he picks up on how creating the "unseen" makes an audience project their own unreal horrors, as the artist's "real" can be more of a relief from the "unreal" of what's imagined. (aka, why Campbell succeeds in choosing dread over gore). Conversely, Insidious overloads in too much "open door monster," revealing only disappointingly tame & rudimentary choices... displayed for examination far too long & often. Maybe I'm sounding too harsh. I do think Rose Byrne and Lin Shaye are great actresses, but I'm angry that Rotten Tomatoes has the film rated "fresh" with a 79% audience approval. It's just absurd. More specifically, it's disappointing how American cinema will fund predictable, medium-scary shockers as its premier "horror." However, enjoyably, at one point in in the film, a character explains astral projection and finishes with "[blank]'s a parasite." Of course, I hoped and wondered if Wan knew of Campbell's work. Or, perhaps it's coincidence, as one's relationship to an invading soul is... parasitic. Anyone seen it? here's the trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1YbOMDI59k | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 92.5.47.133 |
Hm! I'll take it as a coincidence - haven't seen the film yet, though. I did spend the first half hour or so of Source Code (which I very much liked) wondering if I should call a lawyer, though... Again, I assume coincidence. | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.137.108.144 |
We'll definitely be catching it when it comes out here - which is soon. Contrary to popular opinion we both liked Saw and Dead Silence - Wan & Whanell's movies are far from perfect but they do have a good sense of what makes good horror | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
It's not ringing a bell.... Can I ask what that novel/short-story was, Ramsey? I'd like to read (or re-read) it!  | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.68 |
I was thinking of "The Rounds", Craig. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
A lot of SF stories are really supernatural stories dressed up in pseudo-scientific outfits. Lovecraft did the same thing when he converted the supernatural transfer of souls into the technological transfer of 'consciousness' in 'The Shadow Out of Time' – he knew perfectly well that the mind is a function of the brain, and the idea of a mind moving from brain to brain is scientifically utter nonsense. In the same way, all time travel stories are ghost stories dressed up to fit the house rules of another genre. I read 'The Rounds' as a ghost story, but if you rewrote it in SF language it would be quite similar to 'Source Code'. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Or to put it another way, both stories have their source code (so to speak) in the supernatural theme of 'eternal recurrence'. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
Thanks, Ramsey. It looks like that was a story that appeared originally in the recent antho THE END OF THE LINE, so I've not read it yet. I will have to go find it now. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
Joel, an existential question I've wondered is: Why am I me, and not you? "You" collective, not "you" specific, though the specific is contained therein. It seems like a simple question, but it's hard really to answer -why am I me? Varying Nietzsche's "eternal recurrence" to me makes almost scientific sense, horrifyingly. Though eternity will contain eventually the exact same sequences that happened once before, by definition - hmm, maybe Nietzsche was right on that - if you accept the term "eternity" then it IS there - otherwise, you can't call it "eternity." If you roll a die for eternity, every number WILL come up. If it doesn't, it CANNOT come up, not it just didn't. Because eternity contains: all possibilities together, by definition. That which does not appear within eternity is not possible. But then, all things will occur in the measure (ha!) of eternity, or it can't be called "eternity." Therefore, in the scheme of eternity, I really do care a fig about the marriage of William and Kate.... | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.24.131 |
>>>why am I me? Most of us here have been wondering the same thing for years, Craig. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
For further illumination on this, please watch the extras on Ricky Gervais 'Politics' DVD in which he tried to explain infinity to Karl Pilkington, using monkeys and Shakespeare and a typewriter. Absolute hilarity ensues. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.24.131 |
I loved that sketch. "It would never happen." | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.176.15.88 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvZ0PdZ3p7E | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 88.104.130.94 |
Ha! The comments section....one person trying to get the point across :>) 'ITS RANDOM! There is no pattern! If you were immortal, standing on an infinite surface throwing a bag of a million pennies in the air FOREVER!!!! EVENTUALLY they would all land on heads or tails, or in the shape of a f---ing DUCK!' | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Eternity = every possible permutation of existence happening always and everywhere i.e. all possible events occuring infinitely in every sub-atomic particle of every atom of every grain of sand that it is possible to imagine ad infinitum. All is One and One is All. Time, linearity and individuality are illusions experienced only within periods and areas of self-imposed limitation by the One Universal Consciousness. That's "Stevie's Theory" and I'm sticking to it... | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
On a lighter note the most wildly imaginative and entertaining use of astral projection I have experienced in "literature" was in Dennis Wheatley's 'Strange Conflict' (1941). To experience the Duke de Richleau bring the War against Hitler onto the astral plane is something it will take me a long time to forget. However, the best use of the device in literature (proper) remains Ramsey's terrifying 'To Wake The Dead' - my favourite of his very early novels. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 92.5.39.9 |
About two hours of Gaspar Noë's Enter the Void as an out of body experience. Indeed, the encounter with the plane (only in the director's cut) reminded me of The Parasite / To Wake the Dead. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.4.19.77 |
'Insidious' is a great big calculated frightfest that I found thoroughly entertaining. As I said elsewhere it's probably the most successful populist horror movie since 'Poltergeist'. No masterpiece but genuinely scary and an awful lot of fun! The astral projection elements, though far from original, are what raise it above the ordinary "haunted house" fare. Taken within its own crowd pleasing limitations the film really couldn't have been done any better imo. | ||
| Kate (Kathleen) Username: Kathleen Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 86.142.242.169 |
I was looking for this thread yesterday after seeing Insidious but couldn't find it. Had better luck this morning! I read The Parasite far too long ago to have spotted any similarities but I suspect coincidence too in most cases. And thanks for the warning re: Enter the Void, Ramsey! I find myself longing for tripods occasionally.  |