Moral Ambiguity and Certainty

I was watching an interview with a comic on that channel that interviewed Wil Wheaton and Jonathan Frakes.   I forget the comic's name but he was talking about how he had a real disdain for movies that had to give the villains a backstory.   It's a not so surprising reaction from a comic.  He was talking about Horror movies and though partly, I would agree, it's not a real agreement in the sense that I think he means.  If he had specified that he was tired of the convention of the bad guy, evil guy, who had to have some kind of relatable back story, then yeah, that can seem contrived and somewhat obviously "tacked on".   But even if I felt tired of seeing this convention, from a theory standpoint, it could be useful to unpack what's going on in terms of the movie's messages and subtext.  

Where I don't agree is in the idea of maybe needing moral certainty.  The bad guy should just be the bad guy.  Where this comes into deeper focus for me is in the idea that certain actions are unquestionably justified, that they should be able to just charge forward against the monster.  It's a kind of ideology that allows a moblike behavior to express itself.  "The Monster Are Due on Maple Street" is the Twilight Zone that comes to mind.  That certainty is what allows certain awful public and political acts to occur.  A kind of rabid moral certainty can lead to zealotry and urgency that leads to Kangaroo courts and unfair punishments.  Part of the horror of the zealotry is that people can end up inventing monsters, accusing innocent people, forcing people to act in ways that they normally wouldn't.  It takes away the mirror from ourselves and casts what would seem to be a healthy self-reflection onto the victim of suspicion and object of scrutiny.  It is the emergency state of mind.  

The thing about supplying the monster or villain a backstory is that it doesn't necessarily make the monster more relatable in some respects.  You can have an understanding of the monster without necessarily feeling like you have to totally abandon the idea that the monster needs to be eliminated but it potentially makes everything more "messy" (the protagonist may end up doing things that are morally ambiguous or which bring up the question of whether the ends justifies the means)  or you can feel a sense of pathos and tragedy.    

(to be continued....)

Un/familiar noises that scare you

 I was thinking about the bumps and cracks and dropping noises that you hear sometimes late at night.  It's all the more pronounced when you are alone or are the only one awake.  And it's a convention that's often used in horror movies -- especially from the point of view of children or young adults.  Part of how horror movies often increase the "tension meter" in the movie is to use these noises to suggest something sinister, something that is the CAUSE of the strange, unexplained noises.  In real life (whatever that means), it's mostly really boring reasons why the noises happen -- the house is settling, an object like a cell phone (um...) was left on the edge of a table/chair, the cycling of a heating/cooling system, the random noises that normally aren't paid attention to like rain or wind.   But what's unsettling is that I've often heard in Flagstaff a double-sound like a foot step in the hallway.  I never figured out exactly what causes/caused it but investigating the noise(s) often makes the situation worse.  And one can really start to scare oneself if begins to start worrying/catasrophizing (sp?)/horror projecting (???) when one is alone or even when one isn't alone.  That's when the narratives of so many awful news stories and horror movies and urban legends begin to spin out little possible narratives that can't completely be dispelled.  I hate that I understand a little about probability because a .1% does actually turn into a real situation once in a great while.   It should be comforting that's there's only a tiny fractional chance that a noise is actually a sign of something horrible (I just looked over my shoulder as I wrote this sentence), but I kind of do the glass half-empty thinking.   My past as a diving instructor and cave explorer comes into play in an unhealthy way. 

 That moment when you realize all your old highschool friends are racists.

Supreme Court rejects Texas' and Trump's bid to overturn election

By Ariane de Vogue and Maegan Vazquez, CNN

Updated 4:13 PM ET, Sat December 12, 2020

...

 

Republican election lawyer Ben Ginsberg said Trump's crusade to undermine the election's results through rhetoric and court challenges "put a huge stress test on our democracy."

"The Republicans who did follow Donald Trump really have an obligation now to make the country strong again, to heal the chinks that Donald Trump tried to put in the foundation of the country and the democracy," Ginsberg told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room."

 

 ...

 

 

I guess I can use ethnic slurs against Jews as "normal usage" or part of the "normal" idiom and then claim that anyone who takes offense is the problem.  This >bleep< Ginsberg knows exactly what he's saying and CNN knows exactly what they're publishing.   I've got to the point where I know I'm on the right side of this -- even if it takes history another 500 years of bullshit hatred and institutionalized bias.

An Observation...

Foucault > Chomsky > Buckley Jr > Sycophantic Audiences who tend to support the weakest link in any chain

Scary Suggestions on Amazon

 

This is a sort of trivial example, but there are endless, momentary narratives of advertisement "horror" on places like Amazon and Youtube or various news outlets.  I don't know how many times I've seen a strange juxtaposition of seemingly "random" product placement in the context of some tragic news story on Youtube.   

This randomness is actually expressive and no one really writes about it. It reminds me of the term, aporia. 

 

 

 

Some Movies to Look Into

 

Headless (2015)

The Woman (2011)

Eden Lake (2008)

Ichi the Killer (2018) -- hm...

Martyrs (2016) -- the remake

Eyes Without a Face (1960)

House (1977)  -- Criterion Collection

 

The Ichi movie reminds me that I have to write something about the "Orientalizing" of horror.  Initially, it seems like there's a lot of work to do in terms of how American audiences see Asian horror in the context of their broader racist assumptions.

 

 

 

Some preliminary thoughts on REC and REC2

 I just want to jot down some early notes on REC.  Some movies are hard to unravel because on the surface there doesn't seem to be much to talk about beyond the plot, but I've come to understand over the years that this is itself a sign that the movie (or text or narrative) has been highly "naturalized" within the framework of the ideological forces that we find ourselves in.  It's like if you live in a repressive regime and you suggest something critical about the national leadership, you find yourself in big trouble or labeled as a crazy person.  The result of this repression is a naturalized blindness to issues of criticism.  >ahem<

So, my early not-so-surprising observations have to do with women in the film who are keeping secrets of one sort or another.  There are several who are keeping secrets or are accused of keeping secrets including the final "witch".  But several of the occupants of the building seem to be harboring secrets as well.   On the level of the film, these "secrets" come off as innocuous moments of withholding narrative information like the mother of the child who finally "turns" (another secret revealed) into a zombie or possessed creature.  

The interesting thing about the narrator/protagonist of the film is that she apparently has no secrets to keep.   And her job seems to be to uncover secrets or information under the guise of being a news reporter.  She is an innocent like the young woman who had been possessed and taken to the attic of the building where the action of the movie takes place.  When we learn in REC2 that the reporter has been possessed as well, we essentially see another moment when a different version of reproduction takes place -- ie the worm/slug thing that moves from the witch's mouth into the reporter's mouth.  Physically, this is an important moment and one that appears in many horror movies -- the moment of possession or perhaps "reproduction".  

(I'm purposefully avoiding the term "infection" for now since the worm/slug seems more than an infection but an overt invasion of her body.   In this sense, the worm/slug seems to be a replacement for a phallus in the more familiar heteronormative sense.)

What is the nature of the reproduction that I'm focusing on?  In the context of other "witch" films, the activity of invasion or possession is tied to the need to continue or procreate within a non-heteronormative context.  So, a witch's community requires new members to be initiated that don't require sexual intercourse.   The "horror" is partly the inventive (well, maybe not so inventive these days) way that a person is invaded.   How many movies have a scene where a ghost/demon/possessed creature open its mouth and spews something into the mouth of a person who is often troubled by what appears to be "normal" anxieties and social pressures?

There is much to unravel here and the thing I want to mention also is that the Catholic church is acting as the instigator of secrets -- and the initial activity in the attic itself maybe the inaugurating violation that starts it all.  The church then becomes an important keeper of secrets, but it also then creates the demons and monsters that it thinks it's fighting.

Some Photographs of the 12SLBR for George

Here is the 12SLBR kit from Astro-Physics.   It comes with the a new RA motor bracket, two shoulder bolts, and instructions.  (Click to enlarge.)

 

Here we see a close-up of the shoulder bolts.  Part number F0009.  There are no distinct images in the instructions of these bolts.  It's hard to know if these are the correct length.

When I test fit the new shoulder bolts in the bracket, they stick out in a conspicuous way.  (The bolt is tilted a bit in the photograph.)

The part that concerns me is that on the other side of the bracket, the end of the bolt doesn't clear the bracket itself.   So it can't actually attach itself to anything.   When the kit arrived I installed everything and when it came to this step, the shoulder bolts wouldn't catch on anything.   Unless I'm missing some simple principal here, it seems like it's the wrong bolt length ?

On a side note, the above image showing the "inside" of the bracket differs from the image on the website for the 12SLBR.   This may be of no consequence, but I tend to notice little details like this.

https://https://astro-physics.com/12slbr

Here is an image of the new shoulder bolt next to the bolt which it's replacing.  My guess is that if the shoulder bolt's threaded portion was maybe 1/8 inch longer, it could catch the threaded hole on the other side where the worm/motor assembly lies.

I wanted to include an image of the supplied motor bracket compared to the image shown in the instructions.   Note that in the instructions, the new bracket has one less hole than the bracket that it's replacing.  (See image 1-f compared to the prior images showing the original RA bracket.)

I wonder if there's a version of this bracket where the hole for the new shoulder bolt is a little deeper so the threads can attach to the worm assembly?   (Click to enlarge.)

And I'll end with an image of both brackets.  They look like the same bracket.   Except the old one is a little weather worn.   

The False Logic of Pet Defenders

This doesn't initially seem like it's related to horror movies, but I'll try to tie it in in a subsequent entry.

So, there's an argument that "animal lovers" typically use when talking about the violence of wild animals and pets.   In the context of pets, people will always say that animals are not bad, but there are only bad owners.   Usually, this will get a bunch of "likes" online when talking about pets who have enacted (committed) violence against humans.

Is this true?   As an absolute general statement, it seems sketchy at best.   Unless you are blind and willing to ignore evidence, there are plenty of examples of pets who have attacked, maimed, or killed children.   Even with the domestic dog, there is this strong propensity to make the dog blameless.  Yet, if the dog is truly blameless, why do we even discipline a dog for a minor behavioral issue?  And then when the dog does something truly violent, why do we invoke an even more counter-intuitive response of saying that the dog shouldn't be punished?

Is it because a dog doesn't understand the moral and ethical consequences of violence?   Is this similar to making a claim that a human being who is "insane" or "incompetent" is not really responsible for his/her crimes?  If the answer is yes, then are we saying that certain human beings and dogs in general are basically in the same category?   Doesn't this mean that dogs deserve a set of conditions that allow them to enjoy the same rights and privileges of a "compromised" human being?

It seems like the position that pets are somehow morally incapable of making decisions about violent behavior potentially places them in a position to require that we give them the same rights and privileges as human beings.   This is a problem because the vast majority of them do not enjoy those rights and privileges.  It brings to mind the problem of class or hierarchy in human societies.  Slaves, serfs, and the lower-class have historically enjoyed less rights and privileges based upon what would appear to be "natural" reasons that have to do with some sort of super-natural, unquestionable hierarchy and categorization.

In a way, I think I'm getting at the idea that we invoke the "human" as a category when it serves to justify certain acts or practices.   "Animal lovers" clearly feel a need to defend their pets or even the "normal" bad behavior of a predator like a shark which attacks a human.   In the case of the dog which attacks a child, if it's true that the pet is somehow blameless, then why do we euthanize the dog?   It seems like a contradiction.  Or an unfortunate "random event"?   Yet, if we did allow a dog that has attacked a child to remain at large, what would we be saying?  

We would be saying that dogs should enjoy some rights and privileges even though they are not human.   But if we define humanity in a way that largely includes the well-being and freedoms of being an agential entity (I guess this is another way of saying "human"?), then dogs should enjoy some rights and privileges even though they may not be able to ascertain the moral and ethical gravity of enacting violence towards others.   The funny thing about laws is that there is no imperative for a person to understand the historical or legal necessities and justifications of a law.
You just have to follow the law for the law to be effective.   If the law is designed to protect human beings in the first place, does it really matter if the law breaker is a dog or mosquito or a virus?

On one level, it seems like we are simply saying that humans take precedent over dogs in practical situations.   We can't risk a dog attacking another child or human being.  A human that does the same thing would either be institutionalized or imprisoned.  Because that human is a human.    We wouldn't generally "euthanize" a human for a first-time infraction.

And what about the owners of pets who do enact violence towards others?   On the one hand, we seem to be saying that misbehaving pets are simply because of a bad owner; but on the other hand, how many pet owners are being put on trial for manslaughter when a pet kills a child?   Shouldn't that pet owner spend time in a maximum security jail for violent offenders?   Yes, there is legal action that can be done against pet owners, but isn't there a big difference between a dog which attacks a child and a human who attacks a child?

When we say a dog is blameless yet we treat them essentially as slaves, are we ultimately just trying to enforce a contradiction that is designed to reify the unstated superiority of the human?

Half-truths are the tools of all dominant regimes.

The REC movies also involve female possession, but the geography is reversed.  The secret attic space is the domain of the demonic, possessed woman.

Hm...

In Martyrs we have a modern take on the geography of the female body.   There is a secret basement complex which becomes a kind of house of unspeakable horrors.   There is also a very twisted kind of "forced" tradition of women in the movie.    But I can't quite remember if there's any "possession" in the sense I previously brought up.   It seems more like abduction than possession.

(googling the movie, I just discovered there was a 2015 remake of Martyrs...)

Going to try this again...

I'm going to use this site to explore and clarify some thoughts about horror movies...
I'm hoping also to use this blog as a way to get through some difficult theory material in regards to horror and movies...   It will oftentimes be quite fragmentary...   with unanswered questions.
In this way, the blog is generally for myself.   

I started about 7 years ago and took a long "pause" I guess:  http://blog2.photokwang.com


I think "The Conjuring" can speak to issues related to my first posts in the aforementioned link.

There's a repressed tradition of empowered women in many horror movies.  I have two general thoughts that I need to develop and perhaps "map out" in terms of lists.

One has to do with the geography of the houses.    There's often a "basement" in horror movies and I wonder where and how this connects to a kind of "geography" of the female body.    The house becomes a kind of metaphor of possession of the female body.  In The Conjuring, the possession seems to involve two factions:  1)  the contemporary space of the domestic mother/wife and 2) the past tradition of empowered - but cast-out - sorceresses/witches. 

So, my second thought is simply that the tradition of the female sorceress implies a different interpretation of the heteronormative domestic space.   In fact, reproduction in a sense becomes demonic possession.   How else to continue a tradition in a non-biological way.   But there is a kind of problem in the sense that such a tradition becomes largely a parasitic one -- it depends on normative identities and cultural power that are justified/reified/made manifest due to biological necessity.

There's an implied question here about how the sorceress or witch tradition challenges the hegemonic structure of heteronormative space.   I feel like it's a topic that might come up when thinking of all-female communities. 

An interesting complication of my point above in regards to The Conjuring is that the witch that once lived in the house was acting out a religious drama as a kind of gesture of faith to a demon/devil which implies a male master.   I'd have to go back and watch the movie to get more specific detail here.   But I think there's an interesting problem already.

One potential survey I should do:  Map out all kinds of "possessions".  For example:  the transference of bodily fluids --  in the Conjuring the witch "throws up" in the mother's mouth during a nap; another example might be the bite in the zombie or vampire movie; still another might be through sex.

Testing again.

Testing. Testing. 123.  Hello World.