The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Arts
Tuesday, September 24, 2019 — 5
What begins as an almost-threesome ends quickly
in a cabin full of dead children, each missing an ear.
This is the gory commencement of “American Horror
Story: 1984,” the ninth installment in the long-running
horror anthology series. True to its name, this season
pays homage to the genre’s roots by harkening back to
’80s camp slashers like “Friday the 13th.” While it does
borrow heavily from the Jason movies, that doesn’t
make the show any less enjoyable.
The show follows five friends from an aerobics
class in 1984. After one of them — Brooke (Emma
Roberts, “Scream Queens”) — has a close encounter
with real-life serial killer, the “Night Stalker” Richard
Ramirez (Zach Villa, “Destroyer”), she joins the rest
of the group as they become camp counselors at Camp
Redwood. The camp had been closed down in 1970,
due to the grisly murder from the opening scene, but
has been reopened by one of the survivors. Each mile
closer to camp gets creepier and creepier, as a strange
hitchhiker is picked up and a mechanic tells the group
they’re going to die. Then, of course, the camp killer
escapes an asylum.
If any of these plot points sound familiar, they’re
absolutely supposed to. “1984” is not incredibly
original, but that’s part of its charm. The episode
embraces and utilizes the tropes of classic horror
with such panache and mirth that it becomes vividly
bracing. In fact, the whole episode is appealing. The
blood is bright red and the show’s intro features roller
skates, leg warmers and staticky, VHS-style video.
The show goes to great lengths to commit itself as
completely as it can to capture the ’80s, and the effort
pays off. The outfits, the voluminous hair, the cars and
even the 1984 Olympics are weaved into the narrative
seamlessly, allowing the show to emit an effortless,
neon-tinged ambience.
The dialogue is not particularly stellar — and
neither is the acting — but the show is so engaging and
glamorous that it easily makes up for it. It doesn’t hurt
that the soundtrack is good, but a little overhwelming
at times. Rockwell’s synth-funk classic, “Somebody’s
Watching Me,” sets the mood disturbingly well as
the gang heads to camp. The buzzing, synthesized
ambience makes the show moody and brooding.
Occasionally, I wish the show would allow viewers
the opportunity to be scared without music that cues
them into it.
Be aware, this show is horrifyingly gory. Just as the
show does not spare on aesthetic, it puts equal effort
into ensuring there are copious amounts of blood.
Eye-stabbings, literal body-crushings and hangings
all make guest appearances as the characters are
slowly introduced to torment. Not to give too much
away, but a particular scene involving a suspended
car is particularly gruesome. It isn’t that the show is
particularly scary, but it certainly isn’t for those with
weak stomachs.
The thing that has consistently made “American
Horror Story” wonderful is the fresh batch of
horror and tense storylines that get thought up each
season. However, after “Asylum,” the show’s second
installment, it became far too invested in itself, took
itself too seriously and used cheap, disgusting horrors
to disguise its lack of an interesting plot. “Coven”
introduced a famed serial killer and slave-torturer
whose appalling crimes were recreated with a
disturbing amount of detail, while “Hotel” featured an
unusual amount of excessive and unexplained torture.
Fortunately, “1984” does away with the unnecessary
melodrama and vulgarity. The conventional plot, overt
homages and ridiculous gore work well in the show’s
favor. “1984” has easily made “American Horror Story”
fun again. It’s very aware of what it is, and exploits that
to the fullest. “American Horror Story” is still trying to
shock you. Only this time, the show has figured it out
how to, and it means to have fun with it.o shock you.
Only this time, the show has figured it out how to, and
it means to have fun with it.
‘American Horror Story: 1984’ is a gross time-turner
MAXWELL SCHWARZ
Daily Arts Writer
Almost as quickly as he was announced as a
new cast member, comedian Shane Gillis was
promptly fired from Saturday Night Live ahead of
the show’s 45th season premiere. Gillis was sacked
from the historic sketch variety show for using
homophopic, racist and overall offensive language
as recently as this May. Let me point out first and
foremost that I am troubled that the firing of a
bigot like Gillis has taken the spotlight away from
the first (FIRST!) Chinese-American performer in
the show’s history: the immensely talented Bowen
Yang. So before you read my tirade against the
racist tendencies of “no offense” comedy and the
white comedy boys who inhabit the controversial
and toxic space known as stand-up comedy —
please watch this sketch starring Emma Stone that
Bowen wrote with my favorite shape, Julio Torres,
and give him the credit and spotlight he deserves.
In the most non-apologetic way possible, Gillis
went to Twitter to non-apologize with this non-
apology: I’m a comedian who pushes boundaries.
I sometimes miss... I’m happy to apologize to
anyone who’s actually offended by anything I’ve
said. What a hunk of bologna. Gillis is not “pushing
boundaries” with his comedy or his unoriginal
statement. He is saying “no offense.”
We live in an era of “no offense” comedy.
In other words, offensive language and slurs
shrugged off as a joke. In the Trump Era, this
kind of bully comedy has taken hold of the public
and kept them in their grasp with promises
of fighting political correctness and “pushing
boundaries.” So, tell me, what about archaic biases
and chauvinist chimings is “pushing boundaries?”
What is so cutting edge about antiquated slurs?
What in the hell is funny about picking on the
vulnerable for the sake of one’s ego? Why are we
defending bullies for the sake of bad comedy?
Some former SNL cast members chimed in on
the show’s firing of Gillis. Rob Schneider came to
Gillis’s defense on Twitter saying: I am sorry that
you had the misfortune of being a cast member
during this era of cultural unforgiveness where
comedic misfires are subject to the intolerable
inquisition of those who never risked bombing on
stage themselves. Schneider, in defending Gillis
with the language of a Trump campaign, places
himself alongside the Prejudice Protectors of
comedy, the Racist Rangers of humor. How many
male comedians have to swear that their comedy
is not offensive rather, inventive, contemporary
or transgressive? If you have to tell people it’s not
racist/homophobic/transphobic/anti-semitic/
sexist, it probably is.
On the other hand (and cementing my love
for him even further), Bill Hader commented on
Gillis in the most Bill Hader way possible. In a
red-carpet interview at Sunday’s Emmy’s awards,
the now two-time Emmy winner, and former SNL
cast member was asked about Gillis’s firing. At
first, Hader responded with a simple no comment,
“No, I have no thoughts on that,” but quickly
followed with, “I feel like you shouldn’t want to
hurt anyone’s feelings … I’m never interested in
upsetting anybody.” Hader exemplifies the good
in comedy. He made a comedy about an assassin —
now that is boundary-pushing.
Yes, comedy has always been a craft that
requires telling something new. Of course,
humor thrives on fresh perspectives and unique
observations. Certainly, free speech is everyone’s
God-given right. But don’t you damn forget that
making others feel inadequate or hated to get a
cheap chuckle is unacceptable. Using dried up
prejudices and calling it boundary-pushing is
wrong. Making excuses for bullies and handing
them a microphone, a job at SNL, an awards show,
a gun or an oval office is no laughing matter.
No offense, offense taken
BECKY PORTMAN
Daily Humor Columnist
I love “Downton Abbey.” I love its world, its
characters, its Britishness, the elegance and feel
of the time and culture that it resurrects from the
past. “Downton,” as both a television show and a
film, is a program that asks you, with the utmost
politeness and chivalry, to suspend your disbelief
and give in to its fantasy. If you are willing to give
in, the experience of watching “Downton Abbey” is
beyond rewarding. Its world is one I feel very safe
in — even though the characters certainly have their
struggles, many of them hilariously melodramatic,
they always manage to surmount them. It’s an
incredibly comforting show to watch.
Given all of this, how am I supposed to review
the “Downton Abbey” movie based on merit alone,
without letting my personal love and affection
for the series taint my impression of it? The more
I think about it, the more I realize I don’t need to.
It wouldn’t make sense. The “Downton” movie
was made for its fans, for the people who watched
the show and have grown to know and adore its
characters. I, with total subjectivity, love this movie.
“Downton Abbey” transitions seamlessly from
television to film, picking up in 1927, not long after
the events of the series finale. The marketing for
the film focuses on the King and Queen’s visit to the
Downton estate, and how the presence of royalty
in the house affects both the Crawley family and
the Downton staff alike. While this royal visit
does occupy a significant portion of the film’s plot,
it’s really just an excuse for us to spend more time
with the characters we love, to see how they have
continued to grow and change after the end of the
series. The film feels like another, more expensive
episode of the TV show, in the best way possible.
We see Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery, “Godless”)
finally settled with her husband (Matthew Goode,
“The Crown”) and a new baby. We see our favorite
chauffeur Tom Branson (Allen Leech, “Bohemian
Rhapsody”) find love again in an unexpected place.
We see husband and wife duo Carson (Jim Carter,
“The Golden Compass”) and Mrs. Hughes (Phyllis
Logan, “Lovejoy”) grapple with the uncertainty of
Downton Abbey’s future.
Given the wholesome, crowd-pleasing nature of
“Downton Abbey,” it’s hardly a spoiler to reveal that
everyone in the film gets a happy ending, even the
butler Thomas Barrow (Rob James-Collier, “The
Ritual”), a character I went from wholeheartedly
hating to admiring by the end of the series. This
isn’t realistic, of course. However, “Downton
Abbey” isn’t interested in realism. It is the ultimate
form of escapism, and we all desire and deserve
an escape from reality from time to time. To know
that there’s a world, whether it be fictional or not,
where everyone ends up where they’re supposed to
be with the people they’re supposed to be with has
meant a lot to me, and “Downton,” both the show
and the film, has generously given me a world like
that to escape to. Even if real life doesn’t work out as
perfectly as “Downton Abbey” does, there’s nothing
wrong with donning 1920s period attire and playing
pretend just for a little while.
‘Downton Abbey’ movie is
generous gift to fanbase
ELYSE GODFRYD
Daily Arts Writer
FOCUS FEATURES
In the Trump Era, this
kind of bully comedy
has taken hold of the
public and kept them
in their grasp with
promises of fighting
political correctedness
and “pushing
boundaries”
Downton Abbey
Michigan Theater
Perfect World Pictures,
Carnival Films
“1984” is not incredibly
original, but that’s
part of its charm. The
episode embraces and
utilizes the tropes of
classic horror with such
panache and mirth
that it becomes vividly
bracing.
TV REVIEW
FX
American Horror Story:
1984
Season 9 Premiere
FX
Wednesdays at 10 p.m.
CLUSTERFEST
However, “Downton
Abbey” isn’t interested in
realism. It is the ultimate
form of escapism, and we
all desire and deserve an
escape from reality from
time to time.
FILM REVIEW
HUMOR COLUMN