tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5739588130392043394.post8467163938599547412..comments2024-03-02T23:44:06.835+00:00Comments on Buck Theorem's Hide-out: The Cabin in the WoodsBuck Theoremhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15229297104282779341noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5739588130392043394.post-86598898695755622282012-11-01T11:44:01.830+00:002012-11-01T11:44:01.830+00:00Hi, Anon (22-Oct)
Yes, I agree with your general ...Hi, Anon (22-Oct)<br /><br />Yes, I agree with your general observations too. Thank you. How soon 'til "Cabin in the Woods II", do you think: and do you think they will have fixed the control centre next time so it doesn't have a big button that releases all the monsters? Surely they must have learnt their lesson???<br /><br />"Self-reflexitivity (and post modernism, to get complicated) doesn't necessarily equate to insight."<br /><br />Yep, I think this is true, especially with pop-horror. Not that I am an expert on post-modernism (I did take a course once, though). I blame Tarantino myself. Buck Theoremhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15229297104282779341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5739588130392043394.post-29199919729376763002012-10-22T07:54:50.030+01:002012-10-22T07:54:50.030+01:00Indeed, I think Buck and Anon are both right. The...Indeed, I think Buck and Anon are both right. The movie seems to understand what it is playing with, but refuses to commit itself to what it should all means logically conclude. It ends just being another stupid teen slasher flick.<br /><br />Is this because, cynically, Whedon could not vanquish the horror gods as phantasms because he himself manipulates (is the puppeteer?) the phantasms to make a living? Because he wants to make $$$ and Cabin in the Woods II?<br /><br />This movie could have said something great, that the phantasms and all the things we fear really only draw their power from their ability to make us feel fear. Whedon either didn't have the maturity or the guts or the insight to do it. Self-reflexitivity (and post modernism, to get complicated) doesn't necessarily equate to insight.<br /><br />Someone famous said we have nothing to fear except fear itself. This is as true of today's puppeteers--I think you know who I mean--as it was back in his day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5739588130392043394.post-25234533072874908372012-08-28T15:48:09.706+01:002012-08-28T15:48:09.706+01:00Hmm, I think I see what you mean, Anonymous, so pe...Hmm, I think I see what you mean, Anonymous, so perhaps I need to clarify myself.<br /><br />I take it that the sleazy-cam is meant to be a homage (an intended amusing homage?) to the sleazy eye of retro-horror. But it is not as if the sleazy-cam kicked in only once the characters reach the cabin, which would make narrative sense; the camera is leary from the outset and as there is no difference or progression in the view of the camera from start to end, the idea that its leariness is satirical and/or critical evapourates into thin air. It's the same with the characters: they are stock types at the start and they are stock types in the cabin, which is why the intriguing premise never really gets off the ground and hence my conclusion that "Cabin" isn't smart enough.<br /> <br />I also feel it's trying to bite the hand that feeds it, which is also why I felt it condescending and came to the unpopular view that "Cabin" isn't very good. Buck Theoremhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15229297104282779341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5739588130392043394.post-91249076820581374842012-08-16T00:20:55.876+01:002012-08-16T00:20:55.876+01:00"As a supposed meta-horror about the genre, ‘..."As a supposed meta-horror about the genre, ‘Cabin in the Woods’ really isn’t very smart, and therein lays its offensiveness. Perhaps its hypocrisy starts with our first view of our main protagonist in her underwear. Drew Goddard’s camera maintains a sleazy eye in order to both capture the sexuality of our tediously hot young cast "<br /><br />It's like you missed the point on purpose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5739588130392043394.post-56298328084385086182012-07-05T15:53:36.134+01:002012-07-05T15:53:36.134+01:00Thanks for reading and commenting. And:
Indeed, A...Thanks for reading and commenting. And:<br /><br />Indeed, Anonymous, how old would you think I am? <br /><br />Horror is one of the greatest allegorical genres. You say I have missed it. I say that the allegory is as clear as clear can be - gosh, it spells it out broadly enough - but that it is too glibly presented and lacking to carry the kind of criticism of horror that Whedon and Company were reaching for. I just don't think "Cabin in the Woods" offers much of one - allegory or criticism - and that it's range is limited to a TV pop-range of horror rather than the full, thrilling breadth of horror. That's okay. It's soft horror. But then it's not the great genre allegory some proclaim it to be.<br /><br />And even if I did miss the allegory, the weakness in many details and characterisation, plus the embarrassing throwing in of a Sigourney Weaver of Exposition... that's the kind of sloppines an hour long episode of TV horror might survive, but not a meta-horror trying to hold its audience accountable, or as intelligent. It's just bad writing. <br /><br />Between the "Extreme" ("Martyrs"), the arthouse ("Hour of the Wolf") and the all out fun ("The Monster Squad"), "Cabin the Woods" does not score high on the meta-horror scale. As a meta-horror, it's like "Funny Games" for the "Goosebumps" generation.<br /><br />"Cabin in the Woods" is fun enough, fine. What I liked: the basement full of horror options; the asides to Asian horror; the initial zombie attacks. But it's also too condescending and silly, and not in a good way, and too weak in key areas for me myself to get much out of it.Buck Theoremhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15229297104282779341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5739588130392043394.post-72521958480734052752012-06-03T01:58:36.880+01:002012-06-03T01:58:36.880+01:00A Cabin in the Woods is an allegory within an alle...A Cabin in the Woods is an allegory within an allegory and you have completely missed it; explore from a perspective more sophisticated and ominous than your references to horror films could possibly divulge. Have you noticed the unusual ratio of older adults attending this particular movie?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com