Bodom (2016) and the evolution of the Slasher genre

DISCLAIMER: This review contains spoilers for the film and relies on the reader being somewhat familiar with the horror genre.

Bodom (Taneli Mustonen, 2016) is a Finnish horror film inspired by the 1960 murders at the Bodom lake in southern Finland. The first thing to note is that the film is not a fictionalized account of the murders, but instead a story that takes place 50 years later with connections to the murders. Today, I would like to review the film and discuss how the plot mirrors the evolution of the slasher sub-genre.

For those unfamiliar with the murders, here's a quick recap. On June 4 1960, four teenagers, two boys and two girls, went camping at Lake Bodom. In the early hours of June 5, three of them were brutally murdered and the survivor, Nils Willhelm Gustavsson, injured.While there were several suspects, including Gustavsson who was charged with and aquitted of the murders in 2004 and 2005, the case remains unsolved.

 The film is about four teenagers: the nerdy Atte (Santeri Helinheimo Mäntylä), the jocky Elias (Mikael Gabriel), the tomboyish Nora (Mimosa Willamo), and the timid Ida-Maria (Nelly Hirst-Gee). Atte has a theory about the 1960 murders, that they were committed by a murderous stranger, and has convinced Elias to help him test it. Under the guise of going to a party at a summer cottage, they trick the girls into joining them. Atte believes that if they recreate the scenario in which the murders happened, they may be able to get the killer to show himself. And, predictably, people start disappearing and dying.

Since my analysis requires discussion of the entire plot, from now on, there will be spoilers. It turns out that Nora and Ida-Maria were well aware that Atte and Elias weren't taking them to a party. They decided to take the opportunity to kill them as revenge for Atte and Elias allegedly taking and spreading nude pictures of Ida-Maria at a party. Before he dies, Atte reveals to Ida-Maria that it was actually Nora who took and spread the pictures. On their drive back, after disposing of the bodies, Ida-Maria confronts Nora who confesses that she is in love with Ida-Maria and did it to bring them closer together. As they argue, they crash their car and are towed by a mysterious man, the supposed original killer. In the end, Nora is killed and Ida-Maria survives, traumatized and catatonic.

As the original murders were already a typical slasher story, it is no surprise that the filmmakers decided to go that route with the film. However, in my opinion, the film is not simply a slasher film; it represents thirty years of genre evolution. Let me break this down:

The film starts out as a typical 1980s slasher film. A group of teenagers goes to a secluded location to party. There is drinking, weed-smoking, skinny-dipping, and, of course, sex. There is also a legend about a killer. Suddenly, people start disappearing and the unseen killer gets to work. Together with the lakeside location and the past murders, it is hard not to draw paralells to Friday the 13th (Sean Cunningham, 1980), one of the most influential slasher films ever made.

With the first twist, that Nora and Ida-Maria are the murderers, the genre moves towards the post-Scream (Wes Craven, 1996) slasher genre - where meta is the law, tropes are analysed, and the emphasis is on black comedy rather than horror. While Bodom is dark throughout, we get some temporary refuge as Nora and Ida-Maria bicker and experience difficulties trying to dispose of the bodies.

After the car crash, the film turns to the 21st century equivalent of the slasher genre: torture porn. While there are contemporary slasher films, I think the torture porn genre, where the horror comes from the suffering of the victims, has taken the place of the slasher genre in contemporary horror cinema. Let me explain. There are plenty of similarities between the two genres. Firstly, like slashers, torture porn films often feature attractive young people without much character development, except for the protagonist, whose development tends to follow the path of the "final girl" character, who is strongly associated with the slasher genre. The largely disposable characters are also killed off one by one, often without anyone discovering the bodies until just before they are killed themselves. Secondly, the main appeal of torture porn films to genre fans is the graphic and elaborate ways the filmmakers kill their characters. Thirdly, torture porn films are often set in secluded locations, where the characters have nowhere to run. Fourthly, like in the '80s, when slaher films were the horror standard, torture porn was the standard for most of the 21st century. Finally, torture porn films often get an unnecessary number of sequels, for example: seven Saw films (2004-2010), with a new film to be released later this year; three Hostel films (2005-2011); and six Wrong Turn films (2003-2014), with a new film scheduled for next year.

At the end of Bodom, the killer is revealed to be a dark, hillbilly-looking figure who kills the injured Nora slowly, making Ida-Maria watch. While this torturous murder happens off-screen, everything else about the ending is filmed like a torture porn film. The angles, the colors, the close-ups, all more reminiscent of torture porn films than slasher films.

I don't know whether this progression through the history of the slasher genre was intentional, but the film definitely feels quite derivative (like most slasher films). Any horror fan will recognize how Mustonen attempts to recreate the iconic camera movement from Sam Raimi's classic horror film The Evil Dead (1981).

Overall, I feel a bit torn regarding the film. The soundtrack is good and the forest looks dark and threatening most of the time. There are, however, some scenes where the artificial lighting is really obvious, for example, when the "moonlight" is too bright and focused. The film is set in 2010, but it doesn't look like it. An early dinner scene with Ida-Maria's upper-class family looks like it could take place in the '60s, while most other non-forest sets, props, and locations give off a certain '90s vibe. I'm not sure whether this is an intentional choice by the filmmakers, to give the film a weird anachronistic feel, or if they simply didn't care enough to keep the film consistent. The first plot twist is unexpected, but does not make too much sense, and the second one is obvious. The acting is decent on average, ranging from terrible to almost great. It is not a great film by any standard, but it is possible to enjoy it if you are a slasher fan.

TV-Month: Television vs Film - Production and Adaptation

While there are numerous of highly anticipated films coming out this year, like Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Zack Snyder, 2016) and Captain America: Civil War (Anthony Russo & Joe Russo), 2016), it seems a lot of people are more excited about the next seasons of TV-shows like Daredevil (2015-) and Game of Thrones (2011-). When did television become big enough to compete with movies for audience attention?

This month, I will focus on television rather than film. I will discuss television as a whole, particular genres and review a few TV shows. The focus will be on American television, as American TV-shows are watched all over the world and are often seen as the standard for television production. Today I will discuss the differences between television and film and how these differences are becoming increasingly less clear.

At first glance, movies and TV-shows seem very similar and analytically comparable. However, this is only partially true. While we are in both cases dealing with moving pictures, there are significant production differences that must be taken into account. The most important ones to keep in mind are budget and content.

Budget
This is probably the most significant difference between TV and film. Since films are usually released in theatres, every audience member pays a certain sum of money every time they watch it. Films are budgeted according to how many people they think will pay to see it. In times when a lot of people go to the movies, films are produced with higher budgets. Television, on the other hand, is paid for by either advertisement or, in the case of publicly funded television, by tax-payer money. This results in lower budgets, which in turn results in differences between the two media to keep in mind.

Firstly, television is traditionally produced very quickly. Producers can't afford long production times and one season of a TV-show, up to 14 hours of episodes, can be produced in a single year, while a two hour movie often takes a few years to finish. This hectic schedule affects the quality of the final product - TV-shows rarely do re-shoots.

Secondly, TV-shows are limited in terms of sets and locations. Because they can't afford to shoot in locations all over the world, and provide housing for cast and crew, production is usually limited to one city and a few sets and locations. This limits the plot of the series or forces the crew to build sets for foreign locations which may end up looking artificial, breaking the illusion. However, some television genres are build around these limitations, for example the "sitcom", which I will discuss next week.

Thirdly, a limited budget also means limited special effects. In a drama series with supernatural elements, the script has to keep in mind that some effects are more expensive than others. For example, it is quite expensive to have a character that can fly, at least if you want the effects to look realistic.

Content
Television content is heavily restricted by law and network standards, as shows are usually expected to be suitable for anyone. While films are also subject to similar restrictions, if a director wants to include cursing, violence and sexuality in their film, they can do so and the film will receive a higher rating. Moreover, films are generally stand-alone products, while TV-episodes are not and therefore the content of each episode is subject to the same standards as the series as a whole; you can't just have one R-rated episode in a PG-13 series.

The big exception to this rule is Cable television and other subscription-based services. HBO, Showtime and Netflix are not subject to the same standards as their programming is not publicly available.

The times they are a-changin'
While these limitations still affect the television medium, we are seeing shows with larger budgets and more explicit content than ever before. This change has everything to do with the subscription-based services mentioned above. As people are paying for their programming, they can afford bigger budgets and make higher-quality shows. HBO took a big chance with Game of Thrones. It is one of the most expensive TV-shows ever produced, with episode budgets ranging from five to ten million dollars. It paid off extraordinarily well. Nowadays we are seeing more shows with higher budgets, more diverse locations, larger casts and better special effects. These improvements are not limited to subscription-based services; even networks are spending more money in this golden age of television.

Is television a better medium for adaptations than film?
George R. R. Martin, author of the A Song of Ice and Fire series of novels, famously refused to sell the rights for a film adaptation of the series. In hindsight, he definitely did the right thing. His books are long and full of complex relationships and world-building, and it would be impossible to fit most of it in a two-hour movie. While Game of Thrones has excluded some of it, as you have to do with any kind of adaptation, it uses its ten-hour seasons to do Martin's world and characters justice. With this in mind, should we prioritize television adaptation before film adaptations?

It makes sense, doesn't it? Novels, like television, generally employ episodic storytelling, while films use a three-act structure, which isn't as visible in novels. Also, we don't generally read books in one sitting, we read them a few chapters at a time, which is comparable to watching one episode every week. As any fan of a book series that has been adapted to film can attest, they always leave out important things. In Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Mike Newell, 2005) they excluded a subplot from the book about Hermione's activism to liberate the house elves of Hogwarts, which angered a lot of book fans since it was important to her character. A season-long TV-adaptation wouldn't have had to cut it, since they would've had more time. Also, wouldn't the very episodic The Hobbit have been better as a miniseries than a overly long trilogy with tons of added material that no one thought was necessary?

The problem with this line of thinking is that it assumes the most faithful adaptation is also the best film or TV-show possible. Changes in adaptation are unavoidable, because novels, comic books et cetera are written and published differently from films and TV-shows. There are different standards; you can usually get away with more in terms of content in short stories and novels than in any visual medium. What makes a great book is not the same thing that makes a great film or TV-show.

Every adaptation is an interpretation, not a representation, of the source material. Which medium is best suited for the adaptation is dependent on what kind of story you want to tell. If you want a faithful adaptation of a long story, television might be better suited than film, but some stories are better presented in a shorter format. Comic books, the single largest provider of source material for Hollywood today, is an interesting example. Most famous comic book characters today have decades-long histories and countless different versions have emerged over the years. Sometimes, the best thing to do is not to adapt any one storyline, but to write a new story based on the characters, which is what most comic book adaptations have done. In these cases, the important part is to be faithful to an interpretation of the characters; the adaptation does not have to represent the entire history of the comic series. Take Batman, for example. There have been countless film, television and video game adaptations of the Caped Crusader: their Batmans are not the same, but they are all Batman, in different media, genres and creative hands.

These considerations are important, but I have neglected to mention another important aspect of adaptations: they are not simply made by creative artists, but by studios and production companies. Hollywood blockbusters are not primarily meant to be great films, but to be profitable. There is of course a financial incentive in television as well, but TV-shows have to be consistently good to keep a large audience, especially with a smaller marketing budget. Therefore, the decisions made during the adaptation process may be made for different reasons in different media.

With everything above in mind, we cannot simply dismiss film as a worse medium for adaptation, but there are differences we need to take into account. Some stories and interpretations are better for television and others more suitable for film.

This will have to serve as an introduction to "TV-Month". Come back next week when I discuss the possibilities and limitations of the traditional American sitcom.