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