The Mummy (1932)

The second most profound moment in my development as a child occurred 7 months after the first one. Sunday, Father's Day, I had been five for almost four months.  

My dad and I were in the living room when a horror movie about to start was being announced. Like Gargoyles, it also involved archaeologists and mythical creatures.  

Again, I would watch this film in its entirety and, again, I was transfixed.   

I vaguely remember my father approving of my sudden & overt interest. I suspect The Mummy was a favorite of his from his own youth. Sunday afternoon, though, was his nap time so I've no doubt he conked out several minutes in. 

This movie gave my young mind many questions to ponder which I did ruthlessly. People can come back from the dead? with power? simply by uttering words? Where was the Mummy while he was dead? Did he bring anything from that realm with him? and so on.

Ironically, Catholicism only reinforced these ideas by providing the framework & vocabulary for me in which to process them.

Looking back, what really shaped me was a factor I was oblivious to. It was Bramwell Flecther’s role as the young, impatient - and disobedient - Ralph Norton; the archaeologist who inadvertently summoned the Mummy back to life. 

There he is seeing the Mummy alive for the first time. While Mr Norton had been reciting the ancient text, he wasn't able to see the Mummy behind him across the room reviving. To this day, the whole scene is pretty mesmerizing.

Once animated the Mummy retrieves the scroll Ralph was reading from and - in a moment of peak craft acting - Fletcher’s character goes insane.             

It was a most horrifically indelible and fascinating sight to behold. A quick shriek followed by a mounting maniacal laughter.

Even at my age, I understood the man had snapped. Just like that, one moment you’re working on a sensational discovery & the next you’re getting fitted for a straitjacket.


Though I didn't consciously understand it at the time, my overly-literal thinking was concluding something I would not realize for years; something as equally ridiculous as it was profound.

Later in the movie, Dr Muller (played by Edward Van Sloan) not only confronts the Mummy face to face, but he even provokes him.

I saw the Mummy come to life and - though frighted - I did not go insane like Ralph Norton. I'd kept my wits. I now knew I had the fortitude to know such things.

All of this also permanently cemented my interest by providing me the warning that such knowledge can exact a heavy toll on the unprepared student. I only needed to be prepared.

Clearly, I was no Dr Muller, but - birthed in me at that moment - was the desire to be. And now I knew I could do it because I was no lightweight like Norton. I needed to know more and life was ready to fill that request.

Only three months later, when I started grade school and was given the Scholastic Book Club catalog, I didn't hesitate learning about ancient peoples, dark magic or divination. (I would make my first I Ching set the next year).

Later, when talks of me entering the Jesuit Society came up, I wonder that all my interests were not signalling those concerned to suggest it. None of the priests, monks, nuns - or even lay teachers - had ever questioned the topics I voraciously devoured.

Looking back, I guess I understand why. Kinda creeps me out now.

Regardless, life was providing a perfect storm for me to end up on the path I seemed fated to travel. It lured me with Gargoyles & Karloff hooked me. I hit that path hard & with a reckless abandon unwittingly fueled by my five year old take on The Mummy.  

Obviously, being five, most of what I found was "safe" but still perfectly suited for me to lay groundwork & develop my confidence to continue despite not having the clearest of directions.

Whereas Gargoyles opened my mind to the realm of demons & mythological figures being alive & well however hidden, The Mummy added to it the notion of the realm of the dead & how connected to our world it remains.

This would keep my young mental plate full for some time. My thoughts, in the meantime, would slowly grow along this path for years until my third most profound moment with a film would seal my intellectual fate...

Film Discussion: The Mummy (1932)

Snailien Q7 [Haiku]

What does your species

do when it picks the wrong host

for colonizing?

Short Poetry

Is The Terminator a Slasher?

Sounds absurd to even hear it asked. The Terminator is clearly Science Fiction; a killer robot from the future? The notion of such a premise even looking in horror's direction is preposterous.

Is it, though as preposterous as... say...

...a talking killer slasher doll with voodoo powers?

If...

Freddy Krueger can cross the realm of the unconscious into our dreams and if

Jason Voorhees can cross death from under a lake into our summer camps and if

Michael Myers can cross out of boogeyman mythology into our very homes, then why

does a menace who's crossed the seas of time get laughed out of the discussion?

The Terminator is no less unstoppable than any of the above & is certainly no less committed to his cause. In fact, in a one-on-one, Terminator would likely decimate all of the above (assuming Krueger was brave enough to showdown in the material realm).

• Terminator targets women.

• Terminator kills any extras in his way.

• Terminator even kills young people right after sex.

• Terminator's existence is no less implausible than other slasher icons.

• Terminator is pretty unstoppable & can come back just as many times from the future.

The Terminator movie has no less thrills in it, no less suspense & at times is even more tense that the wise cracking slashers of the same decade.

So, again, why laugh at the thought of The Terminator being a slasher, if not an outright horror?

As discussed previously, Horror is rooted in hopelessness which is often amplified by ignorance. We simply don't know how Jason came back or what makes him unable to stay dead. We don't know what triggered Michael or why bullets don't stop him. And so on.

The terminator has a battery pack & software. We know other machines can stop him & that he can be reprogrammed. Considering Cameron's message is one of responsibility, we have all the hope we need especially since we'll be the one's making Terminator possible.

It's as simple as that. If you have hope you can have thrills and shocks but not horror. Going to camp or to sleep or to your closet and not being able to stop what's there from trying to kill you? There's nothing to science one's way out of. If it's a hopeless scenario, it's horror.

Ultimately, this is why Terminator is just Science Fiction, not Horror & certainly not Slasher.

Film Discussion: Movie Q's

Snailien Q6 [Haiku]

Oh Snailien, what's

your plan for catching something

that's running away?

Short Poetry

00tim Letterboxd Reviews pt 2

Letterboxd has been a surprising source of delight. The challenge of distilling all my thoughts on any given film has kept my over-analytical brain gleefully occupied. I mean, for a massive introvert, I can be a chatterbox. This writing for fun business is wonderful.  

One of my least favorite qualities, though, about being a massive introvert (or Timtrovert™) is that quality of being easily and frequently...

...misunderstood.

I love people. I’m not shy at all. I have lots & lots of opinions and I actually can be fun. I just have no need whatsoever of being in groups or loud places to demonstrate it.  

If you give a cactus a cup of water, it’ll drown. Yet society frowns on the cactus for never wanting to go to the beach or the pool or out on the lake – as though the cactus were being unfriendly.  

For the record...

 ...I would never be unfriendly at the beach.

I have no wish to come off unfriendly or drive potential buddies away with my Timtroversion™. However, if I kept asking someone to hang out & they kept declining I too would eventually assume...

...they didn’t like me and probably go away.  

What was I to do with this dilemma? What indeed?

Meditation is a practice of quieting down while being alone. I’ve only ever heard the more extroverted complaining about what an effort such disciplines are – as though being quiet and solitary were not a joyous welcome relief.  

And then it hit me: What if traditional meditation... 

...had the extroverted in mind to begin with? 

Perhaps meditation-for-the-massively-introverted (or Timtroverted™) might actually involve things like crowds and noise and sunshine?

Well, I ain't starting here! 

For now: writing here on Blogger, making occasional comments on Letterboxd, basically posting things online where anyone can read, risking people’s involvement in my efforts and trying out new kinds of exposure will be my start.  

There’s a lot of cool people out there. Their encouraging comments, emails and even Voxer messages have rekindled how fond I am of how weird I am (not drinking-soup-out-of-cat-skulls weird – just oddly unique).

…?!?…   

Anyway, 00tim may experience slight ‘weird’ elevations until I find my special level of happy weirdness.   

I just thought you should know… and that some of you should feel partly to blame.  😄

Film Discussion: Letterboxd

Snailien Q5 [Haiku]

Oh Snailien, one

really has to wonder if

you're thinking things through.

Short Poetry

Snailien Q4 [Haiku]

Oh Snailien buds,

where is your hive & what does

it even look like?

Short Poetry

Is The Birds a Prequel to Psycho? pt 2

Can The Birds be a portrait of Norman Bates’ life prior to him killing his mother?

For this to be the case, Hitchcock would have to show us a mother & son in The Birds with a similar relationship to that of Mrs Bates & her son Norman in Psycho.  

In addition, Hitchcock would also have to leave the viewer a way of tying these two different Mother-Son relationships together.  

Please remember what follows is quiet speculation & comparison all of which is a reading between the lines. Also remember we’re looking at what’s being shown to the viewer as Hitchcock is showing it to the viewer.  

Let’s start with the primary characters involved. First we have the character of Son:  

Hitchcock doesn’t show us there’s no actual Mrs Bates till the very end of Psycho. Nevertheless, up until the psychologist-exposition scene, all that Hitchcock shows us about Norman is actually about Norman 

In The Birds - just like Psycho - only one adult son is ever shown: a good first basis to start the comparison,

Mitch Brenner & Norman Bates. Have we been given any similarities between these two men?  

• Single sons with cute smiles, dark hair, attractive. 

• Charming, considerate, conversational, marrying age.  

• Hard-working: Mitch is a Lawyer & Norman runs a Motel.
• Passionately idealistic: Mitch believes in the law & Norman believes in familial responsibility.

• Devoted to their mothers: Mitch comes home every weekend to care for his mom & Norman lives with his mother & would rather die than put her in a home. 

• Both sons have a thing for irresponsible, attractive, young blonde women: Marion likes to steal cash & Melanie goes to courts for her antics.   

Remember the Sheriff’s wife in Psycho? Remember her reaction when hearing the term “Mrs Bates”?  

Norman took a wife?  

Could that shock be related to the Sheriff’s description of Norman?  

This fellow lives like a hermit.   

Now compare these sentiments with Annie Hayworth’s assessment of Mitch Brenner:  

Maybe there's never been anything between Mitch and any girl.   

Certainly, the first temptation in rejecting this theory is to cite Norman’s state of wackadoodle insanity that Mitch Brenner clearly doesn’t have.  

However, the big twist at the end of Psycho was Norman being Mother and, if you were shocked at this reveal, it means you had no idea Norman was wackadoodle nuts. 

That means the entire film Norman had all the viewers fooled. Until one sees him falling out his mother’s dress, the viewer suspects nothing.  

What warning vibes did Norman give? He was just a frustrated young man caring for his mentally ill mother and feeling the tremendous burden of it.  

Norman’s mother was the looney. Norman was as sympathetic as one can get.  

However, Norman’s mother wasn’t looney. because Norman’s mother had been dead for quite some time. All we were left with is Norman.  

Similarly, even at the end of The Birds - whatever clues may or may not be left for us - no one suspects anything of Mitch just like no one suspected anything of Norman.   

It must, though, be pointed out that Mitch’s mother is still alive at the end of The Birds. Equally important is that we don’t hear of any real issues in Norman’s life until after his father died.

Norman didn't kill his mom after his father died, rather it was after his mother took a lover and discarded hers & Norman's creepily codependent isolationist relationship.  

All we know about Mitch is that his father has died, he has a close relationship with his mom, his mom is pretty controlling and she has not found a lover yet.

Well, not yet - almost.

For more information on that "almost" please consider the death of Dan Fawcett from The Birds which can be found discussed here. One can see Mitch's mother finding a new mate and making Mitch obsolete may be closer to Mitch's horizon.

So one can at least appreciate where the idea of “prequel” may be gaining merit.

More to come.

Film Discussion: The Birds (1963)

Snailien Q3 [Haiku]

So will your pods be

to scale? Are tarantulas 

too big? Wasps too small?

Short Poetry

Snailien Q2 [Haiku]

Is Snailien slime

regular mucus? or that

Xeno-resin jazz?


Short Poetry

Is The Birds a Prequel to Psycho? pt 1

Melanie Daniels in The Birds said her mother ran off with an interesting character:

My mother?... She ditched us when I was 11 and ran off with some hotel man in the East.  

Oddly, Norman Bates’ mother has an interesting connection to the same industry

...a few years ago, Mother met this man. And he, he talked her into building this motel.    

Would a hotel man from the East find running a motel to be...

...a relative walk in the park comparatively? 

He'd certainly need funds for such a venture. Did Mrs Bates have such funds for a motel venture in the West? 

I mean, she [Mrs Bates] didn't have to go to work or anything. He [Mr Bates] left her a little money. 

Would that hotel man have a reason to travel across the country from the East? Was he fleeing anything?

Mrs Bates poisoned this guy... when she found out he was married.  

So, could that hotel man talk a single mother into building a motel? Well, yes...

...he talked her into building this motel.  

Could he also talk Mrs Bates into uprooting her life & her son's and moving so far away with him? It seems Norman thought so:  

He [the hotel man] could have talked her into anything.  

Norman’s dad had been dead at least ten years when Psycho starts. 

Would going back those ten years put Melanie Daniels around age eleven? The age when her mom ran off with some hotel man?

Fun as it is to consider such a connection, there really is none. The timelines of these movies do not work out at all, nor could the character lives overlap in any way. So why bother asking if The Birds is a prequel to Psycho?

Well, the question is clearly not asking about a literal narrative prequel scenario, but rather a conceptual one. 

That is, did Hitchcock quietly leave us links - and the clues to find those links - in The Birds that would connect it to Psycho in a precedent manner?

It is precisely this very question that we will be looking into.

Film Discussion: The Birds (1963)

Snailien Q1 [Haiku]

Oh Snailien, may

I ask: How'd huge Facehugger

even fit on you?!?

Short Poetry