Daily Archives: February 3, 2020

Once the horror genre had been slapped across the face by the financial success of The Blair Witch Project there was no going back. Cropping out from the darkest corners of small town America and cinema worldwide came replicas and rip-offs, some of which were great, most of which were almost unwatchable.

New technologies saw a horror ascension, giving many outside the studio system the chance to create and explore the genre without the need for large budgets and effects. Though despite this, the bizarre cinematic zeitgeist of the new millennium was for gore in extremity. James Wans Saw franchise rolled out seven films across the decade, each as absurd as the last, the culmination of which ended in 3D version, sending copious limbs toward the audience for our viewing pleasure. This was joined by the comparatively short lived Hostel series, all whilst across the European pond, new French extremity was also proving popular taking the audiences violence tolerances to new heights with 2007s Inside, pushing the sub-genre to its very limits.

This gave an interesting tone to horror in the 2000s, where themes, cultures and subgenres collided, here are the best and most interesting from 2000-2010.

10. Drag me to Hell, 2009Director:Sam Raimi

Raimis first real return to his self-made horror/slapstick sub-genre since his iconic Evil Dead trilogy is a wild crowd pleaser, mixing disturbing satanic context with sickeningly gory goo and guts seamlessly.

The comedy is perfectly compiled, fun and totally over the top yet strangely still very disturbing, a skill that Raimi and few others have ever mastered.

9. Martyrs, 2008Director:Pascal Laugier

The most infamous film of new French extremity, Martyrs brings untold nastiness to the mainstream fold, encased within a story which is inarguably original and strangely insightful.

Starting off as a good old revenge thriller, Martyrs quickly descends into something far more deprived at around the halfway mark once a girl seeking payback for her disturbing childhood finds herself in an inescapable trap. The worst date night movie.

8. Pulse (Kairo), 2001Director:Kiyoshi Kurosawa

A spiritual spin-off to 2000s Ringu, Pulse played off similar fears of technology at the time, focusing on PCs and the internet, lumbering pieces of bewildering equipment connected to an ethereal otherworld.

The film follows a group of young Japanese residents when they believe they are being tailed by dead spirits, and haunted through the screens of their computers. Like many Asian horrors, Pulse brings ancient evil to contemporary life, unsettled spirits terrifyingly realised as malevolent forces, formed together within a gripping mystery of genuine terror.

7. Slither, 2006Director: James Gunn

Better known for his recent adventures with the Guardians of the Galaxy, James Gunn was once a more altogether bizarre writer and director.

His first fully helmed project, Slither (2006), brought body-horror to the contemporary fold. An ode to the ooze and gunk of Sam Raimis Evil Dead trilogy and 1989s Society, Slither is an overlooked release that perfectly fuses intense horror and gross-out comedy for a highly enjoyable, stomach churning watch.

6. Ringu, 2002Director:Gore Verbinski

Spawning sequels, spin-offs, remakes, restorations and re-releases, Ringu and its following series has become a horror trailblazer for all things grungy, supernatural and long-black-haired.

Ringu takes a traditional Japanese horror, rooted in fears of vengeful and unsettled spirits, and merges this with the paranoia of the turning millennium. Ugly, unfinished and bulky technology, inhabit ancient spirits, making a generation question just how trustworthy the white noise flicker of their TV truly was.

5. The Descent, 2005Director:Neil Marshall

Part monster film, part a claustrophobics worst nightmare, the descent is a cinematic achievement on the smallest scale. Shot in very limited, tight spaces, the underground world of the descent was shot largely on a set, though this is never made obvious.

Horror is at its best when its at its most simple, with the Descent playing on the same fears as the unknown fears of a gloomy forest, though replacing this overused cliche for the depths of some underground caves. Its a horrible, highly uncomfortable watch.

4. Let the Right One In, 2008Director:Tomas Alfredson

In the midst of the vampire renaissance in the mid-2000s, Let the Right One in appeared as the dark and twisted counterpart to the cultural sweetheart, Twilight. Instead the film created a smaller cultural rejuvenation of its own, bringing dark Nordic drama to the forefront of mainstream entertainment.

Following a downtrodden, quiet boy who finds young love in a mysterious girl new to the community. Deftly transitioning between quiet drama and brutal, unforgiving horror, Let the right one in, set a new president for sophisticated contemporary horror.

3. 28 Days Later, 2002Director:Danny Boyle

The idea of a zombie pre-millennium was more of a nuisance than a terrifying threat. Something that would knock all your furniture over rather than aim for the jugular.

28 days later would change all that, giving an infected sub-category to the zombie genre, and spawning a whole movement of zombie enthusiasts. Its now iconic opening sequence, stalking the ghostly Cillian Murphy around Londons desolate streets, sets a pessimistic benchmark for the rest of the film, a drab, realistic and highly entertaining depiction of viral infection.

2. Audition, 2000Director:Takashi Miike

Takashi Miike isnt unfamiliar to the explicitly disturbing, renowned for his frank and blunt approach to sex and violence. Audition is no different, taking the word disturbing to new cinematic heights, in the tale of a widower auditioning local women to be his new wife.

Its a slow burner which patiently builds a gripping drama, whilst behind the curtain crafting something far more sinister. Delivering the climax with a devastatingly uncomfortable blow.

1. Rec, 2007Directors:Jaume Balaguer,Paco Plaza

With the help of Danny Boyles 28 days later and Oren Pelis Paranormal Activity, Rec took 21st-century innovations in horror and formed together with its own ingenious take on the genre.

Truly innovative, Rec plays out in real time following a TV reporter and a group of firefighters who report to a mysterious disturbance at a block of flats. What conspires to be the result of an occult medical science, Rec spirals into a grungy, dirty take on the infected sub-genre.

A tangible panic and urgency maintaining you glued into position for 80 minutes.

Read the original:

The 10 best horror films of the 2000s - Far Out Magazine

Exactly 30 years ago today FW de Klerk, who had been president of South Africa for barely five months, made an announcement that broke political deadlock and led the country out of centuries of conflict and into an era of negotiation and democracy. His legacy though remains deeply contested, writes Pieter du Toit.

When Frederik Willem de Klerk, then 53, approached the podium in the Great Hall of Parliament in Cape Town just after 11:00 on the morning of February 2, 1990, to deliver his annual address to the legislature, very few believed he would go as far as he did. After all, the National Party (NP) government, by then in absolute power for more than 41 years, did not look like it would succumb to any pressure, domestic or foreign.

And De Klerk, the son of a Cabinet minister in Hendrik Verwoerd's government, nephew of hard-line premier JG Strijdom and a lawyer schooled at the Afrikaners' Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, was considered a flag-bearer for the ultra-conservative section of the NP.

His older brother, Willem de Klerk, writes in FW de Klerk: The Man In His Timethat expectations of the newly-minted president was low to zero. There just weren't any indicators that he was going to be the great reformer he turned out to be.

But De Klerk wasn't an ideologue, he was a pragmatist. And after becoming president in September 1989, replacing the increasingly cantankerous and inconsistent PW Botha, he saw an opportunity.

The Berlin Wall had fallen and communism was crumbling. De Klerk believed the time to take the initiative and claim the moral high ground had arrived.

"There is no time left for advancing all manner of new conditions that will delay the negotiating process," De Klerk sombrely said in the middle of his address, before he went on.

"The steps that have been decided upon are the following: the prohibition of the African National Congress, the Pan Africanist Congress, the South African Communist Party and a number of subsidiary organisations is being rescinded"

In her celebrated account of the transitionAnatomy of a Miracle, journalist Patti Waldmeir writes there was an audible gasp among MPs as De Klerk reached the part about unbanning the SACP. "With those words FW de Klerk destroyed the world as whites knew it, and opened up a whole new universe to everyone else," she writes.

His government, De Klerk told the world, had taken "a firm decision" to release Nelson Mandela unconditionally. He also announced the release of political prisoners and that the state of emergency will be suspended. De Klerk and his government were determined to commence negotiations towards a democratic dispensation, based on equality before the law and protection of minority and individual rights, he said.

"The time for negotiation has arrived," he said.

De Klerk: A dyed in the wool party man

Historian Hermann Giliomee, in his book The Last Afrikaner Leaders, says the speech illustrated to what extent De Klerk managed to lead his party from rigid apartheid philosophies and its fears of communism a year before, to a place where it started to accept a shared country and society based on shared beliefs and values.

Willem de Klerk, the president's older brother and a noted member of the so-called "enligtened" section of Afrikaner intelligentsia (and a founder of the Democratic Party), wrote he never considered De Klerk to be progressive, he was "a veritable Mr National Party".

De Klerk Sr argues his younger brother was a "forceful" proponent of apartheid, propagating and executing his party's policies of "racial grouping".

"As leader of the white 'own affairs' administration, moreover, he became an advocate for white interests, thus projecting himself as Mr White as much as Mr National Party.

"He certainly never formed part of the enlightened movement in South Africa."

Giliomee says De Klerk was a popular figure in the party, but that he was a tactician and pragmatist, rather then acting out of conviction or belief. His reform initiatives were therefore carefully planned.

Waldmeir, who was a correspondent for the Financial Times, describes De Klerk as calculating, a consummate politician who was able to respond to the demands of the moment and who crafted his own beliefs to correspond with the zeitgeist. And, despite the far-reaching announcement on February 2, he certainly was not willing to let the process run out from under him.

"He was not, as many outsiders assumed, recognising the historical inevitability of black majority rule his plan, on February 2, was to share power with blacks, subject to an effective white veto, not to hand it over," she believes.

Reaction to De Klerk's speech was, predictably, positive. The international community lauded De Klerk and Britain announced it was dropping sanctions. Thabo Mbeki, then Oliver Tambo's right-hand man and the ANC's de facto minister of foreign affairs, conceded that De Klerk had stolen a march on the ANC, telling Frederik van Zyl Slabbert: "What do we do now? We can't put Mandela back in jail!"

Rejected by his own people, dismissed by the rest

Thirty years later De Klerk, as the last living head of the apartheid state and the leader who opened negotiations, is a contested if not reviled figure. He has been broadly rejected by large sections of his own people, the Afrikaners, and is generally dismissed as a transformative figure by black South Africa.

De Klerk managed to bring white South Africa with him to the negotiating table, winning a popular mandate in the 1992 referendum. But after 1994 and certainly after 1996, when the NP exited the Government of National Unity he lost influence and became a scapegoat for whites who blamed the loss of power on him.

Along with Roelf Meyer, who led his government's negotiating team, De Klerk is often criticised for his assurances of constitutional checks and balances, which he promised would safeguard the rights of whites and individuals, and which many whites believe have failed.

Letter columns in Afrikaans newspapers are often filled with vitriol directed at De Klerk and Meyer. And with Afrikaans society, especially in the northern parts of the country, seemingly increasingly disillusioned with democracy as Afrikaner nationalist organisations such as AfriForum gain traction, De Klerk is not looked upon as a distinguished elder statesman.

"FW must explain about his famous 'checks and balances'" or "De Klerk was nave" and even "He sold us down the river" are sentiments regularly expressed in letter columns or by Afrikaans opinion writers.

There is a popular school of thought among Afrikaners that De Klerk and Meyer were outfoxed by the ANC during the constitutional negotiations, and that language rights, schools and issues around cultural heritage were poorly managed. This school of thought, espoused by the emergence of a modern, white conservative movement and fanned by prominent commentators, traditional media outlets and new alternative voices, have sought to cast doubt on the transition and De Klerk's role in it.

And among black people De Klerk is nothing more than the last apartheid president and someone yet to pay for his role in the violence, murder and mayhem of apartheid.

Journalist and author Fred Khumalo, writing in Sowetan last year, said De Klerk and his government should be blamed for South Africa's violent culture.

"While De Klerk was being feted for a miraculous transition, the killing squads that he had helped create and finance, some of them operating under the aegis of Inkatha, were busy killing ordinary black people.

"Boipatong, Shobashobane, Thokoza, Richmond, Crossroads are not just place names. These are names of specific massacres on the eve of our 1994 election, while De Klerk was in office," Khumalo contends.

The EFF call him a "murderer" while journalist Lukhanyo Calata, son of murdered ANC activist Fort Calata, implicated De Klerk in his father's death last year.

And although Parliament annually invites De Klerk to the State of the Nation Address, he attends as a former deputy president of democratic South Africa, and not as the last head of state of apartheid South Africa. He is hardly called upon to give his views on the country and is rarely, if ever, given space in the media, and when he does opine it is roundly and summarily rejected.

Condemnation and plaudits

De Klerk's biggest moment was the year between his elevation to the party leadership and his February 2, 1990 speech, Giliomee writes. He grew into his role as head of state and conducted himself in a dignified and gracious manner. "His speech on February 2 was masterful, indeed it was one of the big moments in the country's history and without doubt one of the most important speeches in the history of the twentieth century."

Mandela called the speech "breathtaking". "In one sweeping action he had virtually normalised the situation in South Africa. Our world had changed overnight."

But, Giliomee judges, De Klerk had no masterplan for the negotiations, nor an experienced negotiator. Mandela says De Klerk never wanted to give up power, but Waldmeir one of the most astute observers of the transition says she doesn't share Madiba's condemnation. "He censures De Klerk for being a politician and not a saint. But if South Africa had had to wait for a holy man for its liberation, it would be languishing still in apartheid captivity."

De Klerk, who turn 84 years old this year, lives in Cape Town with his second wife, Elita. He remains involved with a foundation for constitutional rights bearing his name.

See the original post:

The last white leader: FW de Klerk and the disputed legacy of an apartheid president - News24

American Dirt is already shaping up to be one of the books of 2020. By setting out to humanise the plight of migrants crossing the US-Mexico border, author Jeanine Cummins has opened up a dialogue that has the potential to shape how people will vote in what promises to be a brutal Presidential election.

Timing is everything. American Dirt is Jeanine Cummins fourth novel and it has struck a chord like nothing she has ever written before.

In 2013, when I decided to write a book about migrants, I didnt expect people to care so deeply, Jeanine explains. That was way before the issue was in the national zeitgeist. But even since its become a hot button issue, the conversation tends to be incredibly superficial in the U.S. I didnt know if a novel about migrants would resonate so its tremendously gratifying to see the response. Resonate is putting it mildly. American Dirt has been greeted with international acclaim, including rave reviews from literary giants like Stephen King and Don Winslow. Lauded as a Grapes Of Wrath for the modern age, the gripping novel follows a middle-class Mexican woman and her son, who find themselves on the migrant trail to the US border, after surviving a massacre carried out by a local drug cartel.

Cummins begins the book with a letter to the reader. In 2017, a migrant died every twenty-one hours along the United States-Mexico border. That number does not include the many migrants who simply disappear each year. It is a shocking revelation. But, she adds, statistics cannot conjure individual human beings.

By telling the compelling story of mother-and-son protagonists Lydia and Luca, Cummins aims to humanise the migrant crisis for middle American readers. These characters happen to be Mexican and Central American, but the whole point of the book is that they could be anyone, she tells me. They could be from Syria or California or Australia. We could all find ourselves in Lydias shoes in these uncertain times.

Cummins observes that the conversation about immigration has been marked by a singular lack of humanity. Even in 2013, before Trump and the resurgence of casual racism, I had this sense of growing unease about how Latino people, and specifically Latino migrants, were being portrayed in the media and popular culture, she explains. "On the right, theres this insane caricature of the violent mob, like the narcos we see on Netflix scary people who are coming here to deal drugs, rape our women and steal our healthcare. Then, on the left, theres this equally simplistic and unrealistic characterisation of migrants as these impoverished, illiterate, rural people who need us to save them, because we have this saviour complex on the left. In neither narrative are we recognising that theyre actually just people. I felt there was an opening there to speak to the hearts of people, and remind them that migrants are just like them, she continues. They love their kids too.

The inspiration for the book came, in part at least, from personal experience. Jeanines husband, an Irish immigrant, lived undocumented in the US for years before they married. She is well aware that his experience was incredibly different to, and more privileged than, what people from Honduras or Guatemala, riding La Bestia (a treacherous migrant train journey) have to endure. But still...

He endured a decade of this terrifying situation of living as an undocumented person, she says. But he was a white undocumented person, a native English speaker, and he had all the privilege of being a member of arguably the most beloved immigrant group in this country. People here could not love the Irish more, which is kind of crazy when you look back a couple of generations, and see how reviled they were. This is all so short-sighted. Wre going to hate someone else next. It just happens to be the migrants at the southern border now.

It took five years for Cummins to research American Dirt. She travelled extensively on both sides of the US-Mexico border, visiting shelters for migrants, orphanages and desayunadores (breakfast soup kitchens).

I endeavoured to meet migrants, to understand the real conditions that theyre facing, Cummins says. But I was also there to meet the people who have given their lives to serving migrants and protecting vulnerable people on the borderlands.

Cummins engagement with the plight of migrants also stems from a lifelong interest in the universal nature of trauma. Her first book, A Rip In Heaven, told the story of her own familys tragedy. In 1991, a group of men raped her two cousins and beat her brother, before throwing them off a bridge into the Mississippi River. Her brother was the only survivor.

I wrote that book because I felt so angry that the story of my familys grief had been stolen by these men, she explains. They were convicted of their crimes and they were on death row and then, suddenly, everybody wanted to do a documentary on them, and give them a platform to proclaim their innocence. My cousins had been demoted to a footnote in that story.

There are so many violent, macho stories about narcos out there, she continues. Im interested in taking the story away from violent men and giving it to the women and children, and in telling the tale of what it feels like to be living in that trauma. Thats the unusual thing about this book. Thats why people are paying attention.

In an era in which identity politics are at the forefront of public discourse, however, Cummins decision to tell the story of the migrant trail has sparked criticism. In an authors note at the end of the novel, she remarks that she wished someone slightly browner would have written it.

I had, and still have, a lot of fear about being the person to tell this story, she tells me. Theres been plenty of debate about whether it was my right to do so. I identify as a Latina person, and Spanish was my first language. But my identity is something I have struggled with my entire life: Im not brown enough. And now, because of this book, Im being called to account for myself in ways that are impossible to do. I cannot change who I am. I am a person of Latino heritage, but Im also white. In some ways, I feel like Im marginalised from both ends.

Cummins agrees that there is a danger of fiction becoming horribly circumscribed by what one is allowed to write.

So many writers right now are afraid, she argues. This cancel culture thing is pervasive right now. If someone decides youre stepping out of your lane, the attack is coming. The tenor of that conversation is so vicious that people dont even want to risk it, because youre really sticking your neck out.

I understand where this movement comes from, and the need to be fiercely protective of representation, she continues. But when we chase white writers away from engaging with these topics, were just letting them off the hook. I deeply believe that every person in this country has a moral obligation to engage with these stories.

So, if I have a voice, and I can use that voice to try to spark a conversation in this country, that may open up a deeper dialogue in the middle-class populace, why not be a bridge in that way?

With American Dirt being published at the start of an election year, that conversation is likely to be timely.

Ive often said that the reason we cant get any traction when we talk about immigration in this country is because the language is so problematic, she notes. As soon as you open your mouth and choose your label, its like sticking a flag in the ground: migrants, aliens, undocumented, illegal. So, through the great magic of fiction, were stripping the labels off, and getting down to the intimate level of humanity.

Its a great moment for me as a writer, to know that, in an election year, book clubs will be sitting down to look at this book together, she smiles. A group of women, sitting around a dining room table in Kansas, who have probably never had this conversation before, can begin without having to choose a label. Its my tremendous hope that this story might render empathy in some readers who havent thought deeply about this before especially in an election year.

Because then we can then take that empathy to the ballot box.

American Dirt is out now.

View post:

Jeanine Cummins on American Dirt: I had, and still have, a lot of fear about being the person to tell this story - hotpress.com