Genuine question from a newbie just dipping her toes into horror film: If Candyman isn't actually a slasher (which is all I've seen it called), what is it? And how come it keeps being misidentified as a slasher flick?
Candyman is probably misidentified as a slasher both because of its original marketing, landing in the tail end of the 80s video cassette slasher boom, and having two mediocre sequels.
Generally a slasher has a limited region and a victim pool mainly consisting of teens. For example the big three - Jason, Freddy, Michael - are all somewhat geographically fixed and almost exclusively kill kids. Usually the slasher is specifically intertwined with fears pertaining to the transition between childhood and adulthood such as increasing independence and of course burgeoning sexuality. The victims typically are killed for transgressions of the child-adult boundaries such as rebelliousness, drinking, sex and so on. By and large the slashers have a character which is malevolent in a way that's divergent from mere human emotions because they are often larger than life figures of mortality and social moral codes.
On the cinematic side, most slasher movies have a very consistent plot formula and even similar shots. Usually there is an early on warning, the harbinger. This is followed by stage setting the particular vices of the victims, and some minor fake out scares, before the actual killing starts in earnest. There's inevitably some kind of POV / voyeur shot, several similar victim chase safe / fake out death sequences. A slasher subgenre is not necessary predictable but by nature it is a little bit formulaic - it's a type of character and a plot structure.
Candyman is a different kind of movie. I'm not sure it falls into a specific subgenre. It could be called horror noire, urban legend horror, and in some ways it's almost a ghost story. However there are some crucial differences.
Victim type is obvious. Candyman is not teen exclusive - nearly all of the victims in the film are full adults. Not only that, but his purpose for existing is different. He is not a governor of the transition to adulthood or a symbol of sex and mortality. Candyman exists as an urban legend and is more symbolic of the hidden secrets of ourselves and our cultural history which we try to cover over and forget.
As a personality, Candyman is not malicious, but rather tragic and romantic. His history is as a wronged man, a brilliant man horrifically killed in an act of racist violence. People who call him are summoning this combination of a deeply intellectual and passionate artist, and the history of racial oppression in the USA. And his acts of murder are not brutal enforcement of social norms, but rather keeping his story and the horrific truth of our own past alive - being remembered.
There is nothing either metaphorically or structurally in Candyman that conforms to the slasher subgenre. The slasher killers irrevocably tie sex and death together because of how they are fundamentally linked in our lives. Candyman ties the past to the present, carrying a promise that even his victims are immortalized in legend. The slasher killers are tied to teenagers and related transitional spaces where morality and control are in flux. Candyman is tied to his own legend and the reflection of ugly truths.
Both Candyman and the slasher subgenre have deep and fascinating ideas under the surface, but they are not the same ideas, and structurally Candyman is only as passingly similar to a slasher as to any other movie. Incidentally the recent Candyman also gets this, and I highly recommend both movies. They tell horror stories that are very different from most others, and I think both are vital films to see.
278 notes
·
View notes
Could a desk chair kill Macbeth
Under certain circumstances, yes, a desk chair (or any inanimate object, for that matter) could kill Macbeth. The chances of those circumstances occurring are slim, since there are two big factors that rule out most ways that someone could possibly die to a desk chair:
1.) Using a desk chair as a murder weapon, which does not attribute the kill to the chair itself, but the person who used it.
2.) The desk chair being sentient and animate to a degree, which would be a case-by-case basis depending on who built that specific chair, the chair's identity, etc.
However, Macbeth could die by desk chair if, say, the chair was swept up in a tornado and launched into him. As long as nobody specifically set it up so that the chair would get picked up by the tornado, and the chair doesn't have its own free will, nobody would be attributed the kill other than the chair, which, being an artificially created inanimate object, would apply for at least GC and UBC.
Thank you for your submission!
159 notes
·
View notes
you know what i'm gonna just say it. some shit has gone down locally that i thought that we'd outgrown in the 2010s and i'm fucking pissed off. it's somehow worse this time bc we're facing significantly worse threats and they still decided this shit was worth doing for their own egos.
sick of other brown people who see me and others working hard to organise something and getting shockingly decent success with community unity and pull the race card the moment they can. sick of "poc can't protest it's not safe. but also fuck white people who organise any action whatsoever without us. and fuck white people who do their own risk assessment bc what if a bigot decides to blame poc for what you did." like that's literally victim blaming and also we are not a monolith. it's insulting from the people who haven't fought cops alongside me and heartbreaking from the people who have and have somehow decided they're now gonna be on this vibe.
but more than anything else i am sick of white guilt. sick of white people who are willing to let me do all the work of organising something and tremulously flutter around being moderately useful if a little bit fragile until the moment one of those wreckers happens to pull the race card and then they immediately do whatever is necessary to stop feeling discomfort, which usually involves surrendering all critical thinking and any respect whatsoever for me and my work. it's fucked up that they can't hear a brown person say that something is white without going immediately "i'm sorry :( i'm sorry i'm white :( i'm sorry this whole massive community effort, which was definitely not facilitated and organised by a real brown person who is watching me say this, was run entirely by white people with no poc or migrant voices involved :("
what a fucking insult! what an insult to me and to the māori and asian organisers who were putting in the work! we broke bread together! and the moment they get a chance to do Performative Allyship that goes out the window in favor of smearing local trans orgs with destructive rumours that they're racist that were clearly spread by someone who was trying to sabotage the local antifascist movement? fuck off. they better not dare talk to me about community ever again
47 notes
·
View notes