Gillette: A Close Shave with Genuine Sentiment

Do you see what I did there?

In the unlikely event that you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve just escaped some sort of religious cult and this website was your first stop, or this is your only source of news for pop culture (if so, may I ask, why?), 2019 has come out swinging with Gillette releasing a short film entitled,We Believe: The Best Men Can Be. Before reading this article, you may wish to peruse their wares below:

 

 

As is to be expected in the current climate, an all-out internet civil war has been sparked as a result of the advert being released. I’m at the point where whenever anything to do with gender comes up in a mainstream internet setting, I try to make myself as small as possible and pray for it to be over soon. Not because I don’t care about gender politics, but because I know exactly what it eventually devolves to over the internet. If you are not sure what it might look or sound like, please refer to the video of two foxes screaming at each other previously featured in my article about outrage culture.

We’ve got all the sides coming in to say their two to five cents on the topic of Gillette’s video. I think it’s their god given right to do so, just as it is my god given right to lurk and continue to gain intel on my endless quest to understand human emotions and behaviour. I find you all fascinating.

In one corner, we’ve got men who feel their masculinity is being threatened by an advert for a $10 razor. In another, we have misandrists who continue to call for the blanket punishment of men everywhere, despite the fact that they don’t realise it’s counterproductive for their cause. They’re pro $10 razor, from what I can understand. We’ve got other people saying, “hey maybe we need to just be more committed to all being better people.” Then we have that one corner of people saying, “You’re not my real dad and you never will be.”

I’m not here to talk about gender politics for once in my entire life, nor am I here to defend either side of an argument about a shaving implement when everyone knows that this isn’t Communist Era Russia and you are free to simply buy a different brand. Seriously, Gillette does not have the monopoly on razors and you have plenty of independent companies you can choose from if you don’t believe in corporations. I know Proctor & Gamble is massive, but there are so many other alternatives if you are bothered by it – which you have the right to be. I’m for it. Do what you need to do to maintain your integrity.

The corner that I’m coming from today is the corner with a bit more of a complicated title. This corner is titled: corporations do not care for us and we need to stop allowing them to make us upset and impact upon our wellbeing, though we can still enjoy their products should we choose to without feeling like we’re siding with Darth Vader.

Whenever I have romantic thoughts about corporations, and I do often, I’m reminded of a time before my own, where cigarettes were marketed to men, women, and children alike as healthy. I think about all those scenes from Mad Men, which I use for fodder in imagining my life as a film but set in the 1960s, where the everyone smoked like chimneys, even in the doctors office. It was in the best interest of corporations to keep selling the message that cigarettes were healthy for you. And do you know why?

The answer has four words, features in a famous song from the 90s, and it makes the world of businesses go round. That’s right: dollar dollar bills ya’ll.

Call me jaded or incendiary, but from the first frame of this short film I knew that Proctor & Gamble were trying to get my hard earned money at the expense of my values and beliefs. They were trying to nickel and dime me using the well-known advertising technique of pathos. They made me feel emotions at the expense of my integrity. How dare they! How dare I buy a Gillette Mach 3 Turbo four months ago because it’s a closer shave and my European heritage refuses to let me have soft feminine leg hair and now it’s my feminine shame! I’m going to burn my tube of Oral B while I write this!

This is not the first time we’ve seen this happen, with a recent example of this being the Kendall Jenner Pepsi commercial. Pepsi Co had, unfortunately for them, far more transparency in their advert. The ham-fisted representations of fired up youth who can’t get their protest on without that sugary sweetness flowing through their veins was an exercise in hitting me over the head with, “buy my soda you damn millennial!” and then dragging my corpse back through it.

Clearly Proctor & Gamble learned from this, because here we are, getting angry over a $10 razor. For what it’s worth, I think this is actually a really well put together advertisement. One of my guilty pleasures is that I actually love analysing adverts and derive a lot of joy from figuring out what they’re trying to sell to me, besides the product itself. Sometimes KFC tries to sell me happiness, sometimes it’s just fried chicken. Either way, I’m enjoying the show.

I think the key to P&Gs success also stems from the fact they haven’t made the face of their campaign someone who earns more than most of their customer base will earn in a life time. Sure, they used the footage of the incredible Terry Crews speaking on issues of abuse and toxic masculinity, but it was used tastefully in my opinion. That’s right: I like the way they made this advert. Sue me.

And it’s obviously working, because all anyone seems to want to talk about on the internet is either Gillette or the returning queens for Rupaul’s Drag Race All Stars 4.

I want to impress this upon you: whether you want to boycott Gillette because you think they’re misandrists, or you’re standing with Gillette because you feel like they’re putting women first, or you’re having any sort of reaction at all that will impact upon whether or not you buy this product, I want you to keep in mind what I’ve talked about in this article. It is a corporation’s sole duty to make money. If someone is trying to sell you a product, they will do anything they can to get you to spend your hard-earned cash. No matter what, they want to close the deal. They only care that you buy, and they don’t care how they get you to do it.

My favourite example of how far someone will go to sell you something comes from the Tyra Banks Show. When I first heard about this clip, I assumed that it was a parody, or it was fake, or it was some Mad TV shenanigans, because it sounded so ridiculous to me. But anyway, here’s a video of Tyra Banks giving her viewers Vaseline tubs and everyone freaking out like they’ve been given the elixir of eternal life.

 

 

Yep.

And you know what? That’s the reaction that is desired by marketing campaigns. They want you to buy their products. They want you to be invested in their product and to ensure brand loyalty. They want you to buy into the idea that your quality of life will be better for buying this product. To afford a corporation any sort of moral direction is somewhat laughable. Whatever will sell, they will use.

Believe it or not, this article isn’t put together so that I can tell you whether you should or should not buy Proctor & Gamble’s products. It’s not my job to tell you anything you should buy, unless I think it’s worth endorsing. I think people should have the right to choose what they want to buy and to make informed decisions. That’s the benefit of living in our capitalist society. I don’t have time in this article to consider whether I’m pro, anti, or post consumerist culture and capitalist: I just want a razor that works, and I just want milk that tastes like real milk.

What I’m trying to impress upon you more than anything is to continue to be an informed consumer, and to not allow the efforts of a multi-million dollar corporation to sell a $10 razor to cloud your judgement on issues or products. So often we get caught up in what’s going on in the internet world and don’t really pay attention to what’s going on in the real world. For every caricature in advertising of a dangerous man or a vapid woman, I can guarantee that there are tenfold more wonderful people who in every day  life are a testimony to how good people can be.

That’s right, I believe people are good and have the capacity for great things under this jaded façade. You want to come for me for that?

 

tenor.gif

 

Anyway, thanks always for reading. Love your work. Remi.

Bleeding Hearts of the World Unite: Outrage Culture in the 21st Century

abstract board game bundle business

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

 

We live in the age where everyone is a public figure, no matter how small their reach. Everyone gets to say their two cents on any topic they can think of. I think Banksy said it best:

In the future, everyone will be anonymous for 15 minutes.

One of the topics I’m most fascinated by is that of “outrage culture”. Much like Nick Carraway looking over Manhattan, I am simultaneously entranced and revolted by outrage culture. I can’t look away, and yet I continue to have a foul taste in my mouth.

I’m defining “outrage culture” as being specific to the internet, characterised by a readiness to “cancel” people, engage in witch hunts, and dogged character assassination. A cursory Wikipedia search returns this as a definition of outrage culture: “Call-out culture (also known as outrage culture) is a term for the social phenomenon of publicly denouncing perceived racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and other forms of bigotry.”

Typically what results from outrage culture is the following:

 

Anyway, you get the point.

Right off the top I need to stipulate that I’m all for addressing problematic behaviours people exhibit. It’s important to set boundaries, and to re-educate people who might have outdated ideas about things such as race, gender, homophobia, transphobia, and so on. This will always be important to me. I would hazard a guess that it’s important to most people.

I also need to stipulate that this is not an article intended to defend anyone’s actions. It is especially not an article intended to defend people who have been pulled up on damaging behaviours and statements, who continue to demonstrate bigotry because they think it makes them funny or edgy, or because they prefer to be ignorant because it makes them feel safe.

The issue from outrage culture doesn’t arise from the correction of behaviour, or from defending the rights of minority groups to live safely and with the respect experienced by the majority. The issue arises from a culture that determines someone is “cancelled” and lambasted long after they have attempted to rectify their actions.

I see a lot of outrage culture being directed at young content creators, especially young men. One of the most controversial figures subject to this is Felix Kjellberg (better known as Pewdiepie). I know, when will the straight, white man catch a break?

Again, I feel the need to reiterate that I’m not defending anyone. It isn’t my role or responsibility to decide whether or not we should be outraged by Kjellberg’s past mistakes – and boy howdy, they were extensive and career damaging. I don’t hold the key to “forgiving” Kjellberg on a larger level, but for what it’s worth, I do think his experience with the media provides us with an interesting case study.

I also want to acknowledge that at the time of writing this article, Kjellberg has apologised for the unacceptable behaviours he has engaged in, acknowledged the issues with them, and has worked to correct his behaviour while remaining aware of the impact of his actions. In my opinion, this is all someone can do when it comes to saying or doing the wrong thing.

As a recent example of the outrage culture directed at Kjellberg, a Twitch streamer implied that the lyrics of Kjellberg’s parody diss track, “Bitch Lasagna” (what a name), have racist undertones. The lyric is as follows:

I’m a blue eyes white dragon, while you’re just dark magician.”

Now, for those of you who aren’t as well versed in Yu-Gi-Oh as I am, blue eyes white dragon is a very desirable card to have, while dark magician is a relatively common card that isn’t as powerful. It was essentially the deus ex machina of the series. And yes, I was a very cool person in primary school.

While I understand that “blue eyes white dragon” may be misconstrued to be linked to Aryan features, I think you have to perform some pretty extensive mental gymnastics to interpret this as Kjellberg intentionally using a children’s card game to put forward some sort of racist message. When I look at the title of the track itself, I’m not really given to taking this song to be one with particularly deep messages.

To me, the streamer’s interpretation is a clear example of how no matter what Kjellberg does from this point on, his past mistakes will always be dragged back up from the mire and held against him. Where he used to be known for frankly cringy gaming videos with relatively unfunny jokes, people will now seemingly forever associate Kjellberg with “edgy” alt-right ideology as a result of the character assassination occurring after his remarks. Regardless of if there is any concrete evidence to prove that Kjellberg subscribes to alt-right beliefs, that is now who he is to the larger general public. Furthermore, it is easy to assume that if not for the controversies, this rap would have been taken for what it is: a pretty idiotic lark making fun of the 2018-present subscriber war on YouTube.

It isn’t my job to decide whether or not Kjellberg is deserving of the continuous public criticism he faces and the microscope he is under, especially given the severity of some of his more “edgy” internet stunts. But it does work to demonstrate my point about the extent to which outrage culture can affect a person’s career and character.

In outrage culture, no matter how much you correct your behaviour or attempt to make reparations for your ignorance, you are always going to be twisted and misconstrued to reinforce that you are still the person you were when you made the mistake in the first place. There are no second chances on the internet. They think, therefore you are.

On a long enough timeline, we are all bound to say something stupid or ignorant. We’re human, and sometimes we simply don’t know better until someone teaches us. In real life, outside of the internet, most often when the behaviours of people around us are corrected the issue is dropped. We tend to look down on people who call out others for things that are no longer relevant. So why is it that on the internet, everything is fair game?

night television tv video

Photo by Tookapic on Pexels.com

 

What I would argue is that part of it is a desire for people to appear to be on the bandwagon – to be “woke” and “progressive” –  as opposed to a genuine outrage or taking of offense. Sometimes I see a tendency to wait to be told whether or not to be offended by something. What really gets my goat about this is the fact that the very same people who engage in constant public humiliation of people who are trying to fix their mistakes are the same people who preach “only good vibes”; you cannot have both.

For as long  as we keep internet outrage culture alive, we’re going to foster a society where people won’t speak their minds authentically because of fear of being lynched by public majority opinion, and when you do that you eradicate intelligent discussion. We’re going to homogenise culture until we all think, feel, and act the same way out of fear of being completely annihilated.

What it really comes down to is this: yes, address problematic behaviours and opinions. Yes, challenge people’s beliefs and identify gaps in knowledge. But you have to allow people the chance to demonstrate that they’ve changed and that they’ve learned. If you ask me, the cost of someone’s character isn’t really worth the internet points you might gain.

I WATCH MOVIES: I lived it: I take issue with Mission Impossible: Fallout but still enjoyed the film

night television tv video

Photo by Tookapic on Pexels.com

 

In many instances of my life, I find myself towing a very frustrating line. Film is one of the greatest joys in my life – from a very young age it has been a place of refuge and entertainment alike. As a part of the human condition, I seek myself in film, trying to find the parts that I can relate to, and the parts that help me to not only understand myself but also those around me. However, in loving film, I am also faced with the parts of film that I do not like. The parts that make me question whether it is okay to like a film, even if it has parts that are not agreeable to me.

 

From around the same age, I have been abundantly aware of the inequalities between men and women as a result of being the poster child of gender confusion (credit for that title: The L Word). Many, many times as a child, I was faced with situations where I thought to myself, wait a minute, so boys can do that but I can’t? This is some bullshit. In being a tomboy, the double standards that girls face on a daily basis were especially grating for me.

 

As a result, I was hyper critical of all media between the ages of 17 – 21, before throwing in the towel to try and enjoy certain films just for being fun. It isn’t so much that I didn’t see the issues; it is more that I am emotionally exhausted. It is 2018 and I still see an abundance of misrepresentation (or complete late of representation) for women, the LGBTQ+ community, and other people who belong to minority groups.

It is tiring to have to explain to people time and time again why it matters to me to see LGBTQ+ characters. It is tiring to have to explain why I take issue with misrepresentation of women. It is tiring to have to explain to people that I don’t take issue with representation of men; it is just that I want to see other representations too. Simply put, I am tired and more often than not misunderstood by people who don’t wish to understand.

 

The fact of the matter of this: I had a lot of fun watching Mission Impossible: Fallout (MI:F herein) and enjoyed the film for exactly what it was – a thrill ride. It was entertaining, tapping into our primal love of violence, sex, and an underdog story. There’s no getting past that fact. It was a fun movie.

 

MI:F didn’t sit quite right with me, still. I’m not blind to the fact that I only really consume media with guaranteed representations of the groups I belong to, and I’m also understanding of the fact that it is the job of the media to tell many stories, not only my stories.

 

Still, MI:F came as somewhat of a shock to me – and it reminded me of why I started paying attention to representation in the media in the first place. MI:F is essentially the story of a straight white man saving the world and getting his pick of women. Perhaps this is why I take such issue with this film – the seeming lack of emotional fallout that would be an issue in any other film.

 

Within the film, we see the main character (Ethan Hunt, an unfortunate moniker) with his first love interest, Elsa, then the second, the White Widow, and the third, Julie. I actually found myself laughing at something I wasn’t supposed to, that I’m not sure the filmmakers caught; Elsa and Julie essentially look and act like the same person. They are both the saviour for Ethan – the female character there to lick his wounds, love him unconditionally, and act as a prize at the end of the film.

 

I suppose this takes me to the crux of why the film didn’t sit right with me; why, despite the fact I was enjoying it, I had a bad taste in my mouth. Women in this film are footnotes and are interchangeable. They’re simply objects that Ethan has access to at whim. They are essentially all the same character with different hair colours to indicate easily to the audience what kind of person they are based on familiar tropes. The brunette love interests (Elsa and Julie) = caring loving figures who are madly in love with Ethan. The blonde love interest (The White Widow) = the girl who just wants to bang Ethan, who acts as the femme fatale element and the sexually charged figure of the film.

 

These female characters are a call back to the Madonna/Whore dichotomy that I haven’t had to overtly consume for quite some time. The fact is that all of these characters serve to act as a two dimensional love interest for Ethan. We see all of the typical tropes of female representation in films that I had assumed were extinct.

 

The only outlier in this film is the White Widow, but she still has the same behaviour when it comes to Ethan Hunt. She kisses Ethan, but then when it serves the plot, disappears and her behaviour has no consequence. And because she is the character with arguably the most sexual encounter with Ethan, she does not qualify for his love, because we all know that women who want sex are not proper women and, therefore, do not get the man.

 

Ethan has intimate moments with these women, with no emotional repercussions from any of them. He quite literally flicks between them at will, and none of them seem to care. Ethan himself never indicates interest in them overtly either, and none of them care.

 

The issue I see here is this representation of women as being at a man’s whim. There are all strong, intelligent women, who seem unaffected by the fact that Ethan comes and goes as he pleases in their lives. Even when they see moments of intimacy shared between Ethan and a woman, they are completely nonplussed. Their lack of emotional reaction renders them objects of desire for Ethan, and represents a toxic model that I thought was no longer in vogue: the model of a man being in complete control of the women around him, being allowed to do as he pleases, while the women wait for their turn.

 

Look, again, I liked the film. It was fun. And maybe I’m just sour grapes because there realistically weren’t any characters that I could identify with aside from Benji. But what I got from this experience is that ignoring the problematic parts of the media I consume doesn’t serve any purpose for me, and in being able to acknowledge the problematic parts of MI:F I’m able to once again get in touch with why it is important to be critical of media.

 

We can’t be mindless consumers, for the same reason we can’t be passive bystanders when we see bad things happening. Unless we are critical of our media, even when we enjoy it, things don’t change, and we don’t learn anything.

I WATCH TELEVISION: My half-baked conspiracy theory on the literary value of Sex and the City

4988714469_f0afe81ef4_b

Seriously Carrie, wtf

I have been watching Sex and the City since the ripe old age of 14. Watching Sex and the City was always something that made me feel very grown up (I was and am not), as if I were getting ahead of the game in terms of maturity and understanding of the way the world worked (I still don’t get it). I have watched the series at least 4 times over by now – the only program I have watched more times is Seinfeld.

 

Blindly, for ten years, I have followed the dating advice of a television show that at one point ran out of bizarre sexual fetishes to showcase. As a fourteen year old, watching Carrie Bradshaw bumble through terrible relationships, I thought to myself, I understand this entirely and I am an adult, and also, this is real love that I am seeing. Watching Sex and the City has simultaneously been one of the straightest and gayest activities I have ever engaged in, and is probably in some part responsible for the fact that I have always wanted to be a writer.

 

But this afternoon as I tried to wash out the violet pigment shampoo that stained my hands and hair time after time, I couldn’t help but wonder – why did Carrie find it so easy to rinse and remove her stains before going right back into making the same mistake over and over again?

 

I present to you my case in point: Carrie Bradshaw exists in a state of purgatory for the entirety of the series, including the films. She is doomed to continue repeating her mistakes, and cannot move on to heaven or hell.

 

Exhibit A: Kurt Harrington

 

Right from the get-go of the series, Carrie sets the stage for us with Kurt Harrington. In the very first episode, upon seeing Kurt, she allows the audience into her past follies and fallacies.

 

“It was Kurt Harrington. A mistake I made when I was 26, 29, and 31.”

 

So, Carrie is self-aware – she has made the mistake before. This first episode sets up a premise that we are lead to believe is the truth. Carrie seizes her power, has sex without emotion with Kurt, and goes on her merry way. She is done with repeating her mistakes – she’s ready for real love.

 

Except that she walks right into her next mistake – Big.

 

Exhibit B: Mr. Big

 

I consider Mr. Big to be the worst of the worst. With the benefit of 20+ years since the original airing of Sex and the City, it’s clear to the audience that Mr. Big is a serial user who doesn’t really care about anything or anyone. I hold Mr. Big, at least in part, responsible for a generational acceptance and endurance of subhuman treatment, because that’s what you do for real love, isn’t it?

 

No Carrie Bradshaw.

 

And yet, I was promised by Carrie in an unspoken contract that she was done with the mistakes of her past. She liberated herself from Kurt, didn’t she? Hadn’t she learned her lesson, that once a relationship is done, it’s done? Didn’t Nick Carraway tell us we can’t repeat the past?

 

Not Carrie “Gatsby” Bradshaw. Repeat the past? Why, of course you can.

 

Throughout the entire series, Mr. Big is held up as representative of everything that Carrie wants. No matter how many times they leave each other, no matter how many times she asserts that she’s learned how to be strong now and that she was a different person, she keeps going back. She reverts to being the same person, waiting on Big to call and be ready for her.

 

Exhibit C: Sweet Cinnamon Roll Aidan

 

I have no complaints for Aidan. I always told myself that he was the kind of man I would grow up to marry, something that I still laugh gently to myself about today.

 

But even when graced with the chance to date Aidan (yadda yadda yadda if it’s not right it’s not right I gET IT that’s not my point), Carrie fucks her shit up by going back to Big. Then she goes back to Aidan. Then back to Big.
So not only is Carrie repeating the pattern, but she’s now repeating the pattern two-fold.

 

Exhibit D: Burger

 

Seriously, I think I’ve said enough.

 

You know, literature is supposed to teach us something about the human condition, and when it’s done well it achieves this. I always thought Sex and the City was a television show about how no matter what, true love finds a way. I bought into the Big and Carrie narrative, because we’re conditioned to accept less from people when it comes to dating. Lack of communication is a labour of love, and you should accept it if your significant other drops off the face of the planet without explanation. If they leave you, they’re just not ready, and so you should wait for them to be ready.

 

The same messages about what real love is that I brought into have been flipped on their head. Carrie and Big aren’t a success story; they’re a cautionary tale. No matter what happens, Carrie continues to circle purgatory, unable to stop making the mistakes of lovers past and move forward to get what she deserves. Carrie tells us,

 

“I am someone who is looking for real love. Ridiculous, inconvenient, consuming, can’t live without each other love.”

 

But time and time again, she accepts less and less. And so, dear audience, I argue that we have been watching Sex and the City wrong – that we must learn from Carrie’s mistakes when she can’t.

 

And as I sat here, sitting alone in my apartment writing another article for my website, I couldn’t help but wonder – why was this life never enough for Carrie?

I WATCH MOVIES: a handful of horror movies I really like in no particular order

As seen in my love letter to Hereditary (2018), I hold the horror genre to a particularly high standard. Of any given weekend, I will usually spend a good hour lurking the internet like a lower level bottom feeder looking at lists of what people deem to be their favourite horror films, before usually eventually reneging to watching reruns of RuPaul’s Drag Race, or one of the following films.

Two things: although it goes without saying, Hereditary will not feature on this list, purely because I gave the film its own whole article some time ago. Additionally, my main criteria for this list was whether or not I’ve had multiple viewings of these films and still enjoyed them.

The Shining (1980)

 

Being a consummate Stephen King fan, watching The Shining is a little bit of a treat for me. I once discussed with my English Literature lecturer how the film is atmospherically different enough from the original narrative that it feels like an extension of the novel universe. This film appeals to my need to be subtly creeped out while confronted with all the terrible parts of humanity. Every time I’ve watched it, I’ve noticed something different.

1491250008496.jpg

The Uninvited (2009)

 

I was 16 the first time I watched this film, and I watched it almost exclusively because it had Emily Browning in it. This was much the same for the second viewing. However, by the third viewing, I thought to myself, damn, this movie is actually really entertaining. Also, I hope I’m not gay.

Don’t get me wrong – I was definitely gay, and The Uninvited is very much a late 2000s horror film in terms of tropes and themes. However, it offers something more than that, and was a genuinely good watch.

Pro-tip:Don’t see this film with someone who’s already seen the film. I made that mistake and 20 minutes into the film my friend asked, “wait a minute, isn’t this the film where…”

Yes it is, and now that I know that I will never get to experience the joy of the ending organically. Thanks, dickhead.

85824062d80899c8cc8b25b129b4d4e7.jpg

Let Me In (2010)

Let Me Inis my wildcard for this list. I don’t really feel like it’s exclusively horror, although it has horror themes. It deals with issues that are quite compelling, and presents what I found to be a really unique representation of the awkwardness of adolescence. I typically really hate vampire films because I find them corny and overplayed, but this film was different. While it was released during the vampire film hype, it doesn’t rely on the tropes of the time with a heavy hand, and doesn’t let trend get in the way of good cinema. This is on this list less because it’s a good horror film, and more just because it’s a really good film.

p01pfpbs

Photo Credits:

https://geektyrant.com/news/alternate-endings-revealed-for-stanley-kubricks-the-shining-and-why-they-were-changed

<https://pin.it/5cw46ujuprpuuj&gt;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0169lsv

I PLAY VIDEO GAMES: Ramblings about the Silent Hills Playable Teaser

PT

The release of the Silent Hills Playable Teaser (PT herein) is probably the closest I have come in quite some time to childhood excitement levels for any kind of media. I would liken the excitement I felt for my friend to bring over her PS4 so we could play it to be closest matched with when I was a young girl set loose in a video store with (what felt like) an unlimited cash flow. Those afternoons are ones I hold dearly, and ones I mourned along with the death of renting culture. I would spend hours selecting games and movies, planning an evening for myself to the minute. It’s an experience I still try to emulate to this day with very little luck.

PT was an experience I’ve never had before with video games, not only in the sense that my friends and I could only able to play for a collective 20 minutes because of the level of scares we were experiencing. PT melded together everything I love in my literature – the themes of family conflict, mystery, nostalgia, vengeful spirits; you know, that old chestnut. And while I’ve come to expect video games to trade literary merit for 360 no scopes, PT held itself in a league of its own.

And it’s with that nostalgia, I think, that we tap into something very interesting with PT. Throughout the available gameplay, we aren’t necessarily given a definitive timeline for when this is happening. We know it’s suburban America, we see the imagery of a young married couple with the stylings of the late 50s to early 60s. This provides commentary on the death of the American Dream. For me personally, I enjoyed this destruction of the American Dream and the suburban fantasy land, much in the same way I enjoyed the commentary provided by The Great Gatsby. PT was deeper than just a shoot-em-up. It had heart, that it ripped out of the player character’s chest, and then ate.

I think that half of the appeal of PT was that it tapped into something so familiar to people from all backgrounds, regardless of timeline. We have all been to this house; we have all met this couple. We have all had to navigate an unfamiliar setting in the dead of night to get a glass of water, feeling our hearts pounding in our chests, convinced we’re about to get got by something. We have walked that hallway before – not just in the game, but in our lives.

Immediately following PT’s release, eventual removal, and disappointing cancellation, the effects of the demo were apparent in gaming culture. Countless games are paying homage to what could have been: from Layers of Fear (2016) to Resident Evil 7 (2017). But I don’t necessarily find this to be a crime of bandwagon culture in gaming per say. While I am the first to call out bandwagon culture in any media field, this isn’t the case here – at least to my view.

Rather, the horror genre in video games has been given a dramatic facelift, and it stuck! No longer do we need our (often straight white male) characters to be armed to the teeth. Developers essentially said to players, “good luck dickhead, all you get is a lantern and puzzle solving skills.”

And I thank Hideo Kojima for this.

Our avatars are no longer invulnerable bullet sponges, they are reduced to a basic human level. We are forced to think instead of just wildly shooting at enemies and hoping for the best. The greatest gift of all is that we’re drawn into a narrative and an experience more often now, where in the past quite often the key fun of the game was loading lead into the skull of a “monster”. The changes PT has put into motion have been necessary ones, and while I hesitate to use the L word when talking about games, PT has edged the horror genre further from being basic cheap thrills, and closer to being what one could almost consider legitimate literature.

Look, do yourself a favour: don’t eat dairy right before bed, life is full of mains so don’t fill up on entrees, and if you haven’t yet, check out PT.

Image Credit: https://www.gamewatcher.com/news/2017-13-11-hideo-kojima-s-famous-silent-hills-playable-teaser-p-t-is-being-recreated-by-a-youtuber-and-it-looks-fantastic

Note: This video is Silent Hills Playable Teaser without gamer commentary – essentially, it is more of a “film”. PT is quite frightening and can be quite confronting to viewers. I would advise against watching the film if you are quite sensitive to graphic subject matter, and horror in general.

I WATCH MOVIES: You know what? I’m about to say it – Hereditary (2018) is my new favourite horror film

27564342187_c3929a32b9_o

I have a lifelong love affair with horror. However, as much as I love it, my relationship with the genre has been plagued with periods of animosity followed by dizzying spells of happiness, and ultimately crushing disappointment.

I still remember my first brush with horror. The first two horror films I ever saw were Anaconda (1997) and Scary Movie 3 (2003), after both of which I had chronic nightmares. I was exhilarated. I have since been informed these films are in fact classified as comedy.

But that’s not the point. The point is, I was hooked.

As an adult, however, I simply don’t scare as easily. A jump scare may tickle me and briefly make me feel optimistic, but I’m mostly immune to scares. I’ve felt like I exist in Ezra Pound’s The Bath-Tub– having to tell horror through water devoid of warmth and full of wrinkled skin, it’s not you, it’s me.

But I was wrong. It wasn’t me – it was them.

I’m not into hysteria when it comes to the quality of pop culture, art, and so on. I simply don’t believe that artistic expression is as watered down as people seem to think it is. I have faith in the creativity of human beings. I roll my eyes at “back in my day” sentiments, knowing full well that this is simply nostalgia at play. Have you ever tried to watch something you genuinely enjoyed as a child again? Usually, what you are faced with is a bland predictable narrative designed to sell you toys, and a second hand embarrassment for your younger self.

When it comes to horror, however, I’ve been put through the ringer enough times over these past few years. A lover burned, I’m no longer open to just any promise of fright that walks through my door. I look down on new releases time and time again, uttering with complete malice, “I know your type.”

But not you, Hereditary. True, I was sceptical, but I was wrong. My standards aren’t too high. I can expect actual scares AND a compelling narrative.

Every piece of Hereditary feels purposeful and curated. The soundtrack works perfectly with the visuals. The film is a tour de force. From the opening scene I was pulled into the narrative world, where my lack of knowledge was perfectly balanced with the amount of information they gave away. Where characters felt like real people, experiencing real horror. The film’s depiction and handling of my favourite literary term – the transgenerational phantom – was satisfying, instead of feeling tacked on and cheap. The film had heart – the characters were all of us, dealing with loss, familial conflict, and demonic possession. I for one can relate.

Hereditary, I believe in horror again because of you. Even now, several weeks after seeing the film, it’s on my mind. I’m still reading about it. I’m still talking about it. I’m in love.

Do yourself a favour: don’t bother with people who don’t text you back, get enough sleep for yourself, and watch this damn film.

Photo Credit:

<https://www.flickr.com/photos/89191738@N00/27564342187/&gt;