30 Day Horror Challenge Strikes Back Day 18: Character you wish you could save from death.

A wise man once said that the first rule of horror movies is that anyone can die at any time. That’s what creates the tension. Therefore if I saved any person from death, it would violate the rules. As much as I would like to save, for example, the Firefly family at the end of Devil’s Rejects so we could have more sequels, it’s against the rules. So if I can’t save a person, I’ll just have to go another route with this one. I’ll have to save something that isn’t human. That’s cool with me. I have a little touch of misanthropy in me. I like animals more than I like most people. That’s not to say I’m antisocial, I’ve just never had an animal stab me in the back.

I love dogs in particular. Me and man’s best friend are pretty tight. A lot of dogs have died in horror movies. Evil or mad dogs, like in Cujo or Man’s Best Friend, I understand. They had to go. The dog in Alien 3 had to go because it was integral to the plot. The plot necessity of offing all of the dogs that have died in the Halloween series is debatable. The one I would save is the rottweiler from Candyman. When Virginia Madsen’s character wakes up in Cabrini Green after her encounter with Candyman in the Parking garage, she finds herself in the apartment of a woman she met earlier holding a meat cleaver. Next to her is a decapitated dog. The woman’s baby is also missing. When the cops show up, she is obviously suspect number one.

You know, just being accused of kidnapping the baby would have sufficed. Killing the dog just wasn’t necessary. Come on Candyman, don’t you think she would have gotten in deep enough trouble without offing the canine? Actually, she did need to be covered in blood for the whole “blood soaked bra” scene to work. Kill a person instead then. I would rather have seen one of the Cabrini hoodrats headless than that dog. Rotts are good dogs. I like that breed. If it had been a chow, no problem. Those suckers are mean. That rott may have looked mean, but he was just protecting his family. I think a person would have been better for the plot too. Most people would have reacted stronger than that. Hell, just have her covered in blood with no explanation. That would have worked too. It could have been a little “whose blood was that” subplot.

Anything, just leave the dog alone. Look at that face Candyman. How can you decapitate that? You heartless bastard! Although, it does lend itself to the hilarious idea of PETA getting shot all to hell while they try to protest at Cabrini Green. Or maybe Candyman could take the hook to Sarah McLachlan in the middle of one of those god awful one-eyed puppy commercials. Wait…that was five times wasn’t it? Oh crap. Hide the dog.

30 Day Horror Challenge Day 07 - Your favorite supernatural horror film

Well, this is a broad topic, huh? Technically, anything besides a serial killer flick could really be considered “supernatural.” I’m gonna guess the intent was ghosts and hauntings though, so I’m gonna go with Candyman. I hear you all asking, “Candyman? Supernatural horror? What?” Candyman often gets lumped in with the slasher genre, and I can see why. Candyman himself is an iconic killer with a trademark weapon. The movie, however, is really a ghost flick. He’s an urban legend, brought to life as an apparition by the belief in his story. Sounds pretty supernatural to me.

Candyman is based on a Clive Barker short story. It’s a riff on the old Bloody Mary shtick. For those of you who were never in elementary school, allow me to elaborate. Her backstory varies, but the legend says that if you say her name 5 times (or 3, or 10, depending on where you grew up) into a mirror in the dark, she will appear. Candyman is a similar legend, based on a tale of the son of a slave murdered for his romance with a white woman. He returned as a hook handed killer summoned by saying his name 5 times. His legend is a part of the culture of Cabrini Green, a housing project in Chicago. When real life murders start occurring, you guessed it, they are attributed to Candyman. Helen is writing a thesis about the Candyman myth, and, while doing some on site research, is assaulted by a gang member who has taken on the persona. After she helps put him away, the myth has supposedly been dispelled. Then the real Candyman shows up, and he’s pissed. It seems that her screwing with people’s belief in his legend threatens him. This is basically the same problem Freddy had in Freddy vs. Jason. If no one’s scared, the boogeyman becomes obsolete and fades away. The rest of the movie deals with everyone Helen knows dying by the hook, Helen being blamed for the murders, and Candyman attempting to get Helen to join him in legend land.

That godawful Urban Legend flick mined similar territory 6 years later, but the “urban legend come to life” motif is married to a much more interesting concept here. Candyman is given life through the belief and fear in his story. Is he real because people believe in his story, or do people believe in his story because he’s real? He states at one point “Your disbelief destroyed the faith of my congregation. Without them I am nothing.” Brings up some theological questions huh? No wonder, it’s based on a Clive Barker story. Barker excels at taking big metaphysical and cultural questions and issues and burying them in a horror story. Look at all of the symbolism in the flick I talked about yesterday, Nightbreed. They say a teaspoon of sugar helps the medicine go down. Well Clive knows that a bucket of blood makes philosophy more palatable to the horror freak. Without this whole deeper concept, this could have easily been just another slasher flick.

So, aside from the cool concept, what do we have here? Great monster? Check. Tony Todd is, as always, excellent. He’s right up there with Lance Henriksen on the short list of actors that can get me to sit through bad movies just because of their presence. Not Candyman, it’s awesome, but Tony has been in some true crap in his career. He’ll be popping up again before this 30 Day thing is over. His Candyman isn’t just maniacal, but suave and regal. His voice is absolutely perfect for the characters dialog. There’s a reason this became his best known role. Talented and OH MY GOD beautiful leading lady? Check. Virginia Madsen pulls off a subtle but spot on performance. Killer setting? Check. The filthy, graffiti covered corridors of Cabrini Green and Candyman’s layer are magnificent. Good direction? Check. Bernard Rose, just like in Paperhouse (another one he directed), prefers long shots to rapid fire cuts and moves the camera with a fluidity many directors can’t pull off. Good writing? Check. For a 99 minute movie based on a 58 page story, there sure isn’t much filler. The tension just keeps building and building. Spine tingling score? Check. Check this out...

…creepy as hell, right? Well done Philip Glass

The true testament to the effectiveness of this movie is that I know people in their mid 30’s that won’t say Candyman five times in a mirror TO THIS DAY! Me, I ain’t afraid of no ghost. Just in case though, let me go ahead and say two severed thumbs up. Nathan says check it out. Ok, here we go. Candyman. Candyman. Candyman. Candyman. Ca…oh wait, I almost forgot. I told Travis I’d put a haiku in this one. Here ya go...

His voice may be smooth

“Sweets for the sweet. Be my victim.”

But the hook says more.

…Candyman.