The Hills Have Eyes: A Sequel to a Long-Lost Curiosity
1932 witnessed the release of a cinematic curiosity that could be never be made in the more politically correct present, the infamous Freaks. Deploying a cast of actors asked to parade their physical disabilities in the same way their respective characters do on the film's circus-like stage, Tod Browning's film only partially succeeded in ennobling the larger population represented by his token examples. Admittedly, the first part of the film works to familiarize the inexperienced audience with the very normal relational needs and sexual desires which characterize those with an array of mental and physical differences, differences that have won them only hard stares and ostracizing practices from "normals." We observe the familial ties binding together a few intellectually disabled adults, a man with no legs, one with neither arms nor legs, a couple dwarfs, and a few others with various physical differences; we learn about a man's marriage to only one in a pair of conjoined twins, and we watch a little man earnestly express his passion for the circus's tall, blond, arrogant beauty.
And then Browning pollutes his enlightened social vision by having his menagerie of characters violently avenge themselves on two (admittedly selfish and dangerous) coworkers, the beauty and her strong man lover. In concluding the film this way, Browning reinvested the "freaks" with the gruesome apparel of which he had stripped them, casting them once more as fearsome and capricious grotesques (rightly) ostracized by an ignorant, prejudiced majority.
Last year's The Hills Have Eyes (2006) unfortunately takes inspiration from this disheartening example, employing a community of disabled adults in equally--if more one-sided--fashion to menace their beautiful peers. A family traveling through a sparsely populated, arid region of the Southwest finds their vacation plans disrupted by a community of cannibalistic savages mutated by secret nuclear tests conducted earlier in the century. Instead of becoming a critique of our country's defense department, however, the flick degenerates into a gore-fest with primary characters being set on fire, molested, shot, and eaten. The disfigured mutants' great strength, their cunning, and their apparent desperation (what, after all, is one to eat out in a lifeless desert?) make them into a deadly force that all but eliminates the band of travelers during the band's first onslaught. These villains do not hesitate to kill, show absolutely no compassion for their pleading victims, and--most unsettling--appear to get a near-sexual thrill out of blood-letting.
Once again, characters with physical disabilities have been given malicious personalities consistent with the worst kind of physiognomic formula disseminated by American cartoons, Gothic novels, and 60s horror films. In the The Hills Have Eyes, we find society's unfortunate discomfort with physical difference vigorously mixed with our fear of death and sprayed thickly across the silver screen, obscuring narrative with a pulpy mass of titillating violence.
This is not to deny director Browning's inclusion of the requisite kind-hearted defector. He does give us a good-girl mutant dressed up like Little Red Riding Hood, one whose youth and relatively minimal disfigurement quickly establish her as a sympathetic character who will help the good guys in their time of need. Even she, however, must ultimately exit the picture before the movie can have its warm and fuzzy ending. Now, if the most fantastic, outrageous kind of horror film can find no place in its radically realigned social matrix for characters with disfigurements and disabilities, who can?
Who will?
Posted by Paul Marchbanks at April 22, 2007 8:08 PM
Comments
Howdy Paul,
Believe it or not, I watched this movie through my available line up of what seems like 413 HBO stations (or is it only 13?). It is so hard to tell these days in the blur of relative garbage and dearth of quality programming that come with the digital cable package I was so excited to obtain, that in the end resulted with my family watching only about 3-4 stations anyway. After all, how many times does one need to see the movie Predator on American Movie Classics (though who am I to debate the 'classic-ness' of Predator and Schwarzenegger in his prime), or see the affable story of Free Willy on HBO? But I ask you, whatever happened to ONE HBO station with ONE decent movie on the Saturday night schedule?
But pardon my digression as I return to the movie at issue. I could not sleep last Saturday night, and with the family cats sitting on my lap and my wife and daughter safely asleep I figured, hey, I haven't had a good scare in a while, so why not?
Well, after finishing this movie I soon realized two hours of my life were loss forever (and sleep life mind you), two precious hours of sanity rejuvenating sleep with a baby in the house. And for those of you with children you know what I mean. This fact was greatly impressed upon me after reflecting upon the gratuitous burn-death scene of my favorite police Captain Stottlemeyer from the TV series Monk by the mutants, yet I still held hope that this movie would improve.
In the end though I found disgust with the continual display of those with disabilities portrayed as brutal savages not to be trusted; at a minimum those to be shunned as both fearsome and loathsome. Combine this with the vicious savagery directed at "innocent victims" that in spite of our break-out hero mutant, the "little red riding hood" who saves the day this movie does nothing for breaking the continued stereotyping and rejection of those with disabilities, which in spite of the ADA is still widely problematic today. It also specifically reiterates how those with mental illness are consistently treated as dangerous to themselves and others and not to be trusted with even the simplest of tasks, yet simultaneously they too are still responsible for their own illness, that they somehow "caused" it and must deal with it on their own and will be "judged" accordingly.
Consider this: although we would not say to a person suffering from a terminal brain tumor to "just suck it up", that he/she should pull themselves up by their boot straps, get their act together, and put on their best face in the American tradition, we often see the mentally and physical disabled portrayed as somehow 'accountable' for their plight and subsequently responsible for dealing with it and "getting their own act together". Having a member of my own family that suffers from mental illness, I am reminded that I too am guilty of hasty anger and judgment of her actions, resulting in my push for the family member to "get her act together". The reality is that she suffers from a debilitating, despicable chronic disease that robs her of her sweet, gentle nature and intellectual gifts; gifts that were once so promising for a career of teaching young minds, yet ultimately left her unemployed with many good years lost. It should be the wake call for (and fortunately has been with our family) to embrace her, support her, and simply love her as any other person with a chronic disease. Unfortunately though this type of treatment of the disabled even spills over and is still seen in research close to my own field of health services research, one where mental illness research is still stigmatized and suffers greatly from inadequate levels of funding necessary to battle a large and growing problem in our country; one of funding levels that should match those researching other chronic, debilitating diseases.
With that said, I end with my thoughts of Christ and the sometimes cliché phrase of "What would Jesus Do?" in this situation. My thoughts of Christ and reflecting on how his love has changed my life leads me to think he would simply "love on them'" as my mother would say; that a person with a disability is a valuable and precious gift to both Christ and us as human beings. Not a "pity" love, but an honest Christ love similar to his love of his Church. And oh yea, it reminds me to pass on a wise thought from my insightful wife regarding the next time you see a transient on the side of the road asking for help and/or money. These people too often suffer from a myriad of mental problems, and while often looking perfectly "able" to function in society, there is always a complex story behind the person and a real need for Christly compassion, help, and love. It may be as simple as giving a dollar to that person, serving a dinner at your local shelter, or saying hello and talking with a disabled person you know. It could be the one compassionate act in a million that changes that person's life for the better. Remember this the next time you have the knee-jerk thought of "oh, get a job you ----". I think Christ would. And I hope I always will.
Posted by: Johnny Tar Heel at May 1, 2007 11:51 AM