Creature from the Black Lagoon

The creature of the black lagoon was characterized as the epitome of terror. This film gave life to a magnificent monster. Many of his physical features are meant to intimidate and pester people. Even the movie ads portray a monster that looks dangerous and repulsive. This monster originates from the amazons and is a combination of human and fish. His extremities are covered by scales, and he is able to agilely swim and walk. The success of this monster was mostly because many of the 50’s Sci-Fi films began to make use of various side effects.

                          

What is particularly surprising is that aside from the fact the monster displays a physically dangerous appearance all of the movies present a creature that is mellow. It is somewhat ironic to see the monster in the ads as a scary monster, yet the first movie is about a creature that falls in love with a member of the explorer team. The second movie, The Revenge of the Creature (1955) exhibits him as a powerless being that is mistreated while in captivity. Lastly the movie entitled, The Creature Walks Among Us (1956) makes of this monster a fragile creature that is old and hurt, desperate to be sent back to its natural habitat. All of these movies, instead of making the creature of the Black Lagoon appear as the monster, they make humans appear as the real heartless individuals who show no remorse in mistreating and vilely exhibiting a poor creature as if he were the worst creation in the world.  Nevertheless, the “scaring” effect this monster produced resulted in innumerable copies and remakes of this character. In my point of view this creature is anything but a monster; he clearly exhibits very human-like qualities such as vulnerability, compassion, love and fear. Yet, during the time period the movie was aired the monster was detested and scary. This drives me to think whether movie industries attempt to display the image of a typical monster only by means of disturbing physical characteristics, after all that was the only thing scary of this monster.

Dybbuk

Religion in its essence is a medium by which individuals seek comfort and security. Its principles are supposed to serve as a framework in which ethical foundations are set. The benign aspects of religion can be numerous, however, religion is free from defects. Religion can easily diverge into its dark side which consists of cults, extremist, demonic  possessions, and witchcraft. Folktales in particular, play an eminent role in disclosing the dark sides especially those that deal with demonic possessions  A Jewish folktale for example, whose roots are trace back to the old testament of the Bible, revolves around a spirit known as Dybbuk. This spirit is known to linger  in the world of the living because it is unable to rest in peace due to the sins it committed in the past. The lamenting soul would then cling itself into the body of an individual. By doing so, it completely takes possession over the body and its actions, with the only purpose of torturing the being it took over. It must be taken into consideration that this spirit, according to the folktale,  is only able to take over a body of a sinner or someone who is not spiritual. The immense popularity over the concept of Dybbuk has enabled it to be adapted to the big screen by movies such as, The Possession, The Tenth Man, and The Unborn.

The idea of the wondering spirit itself isn’t so taunting what does make it taunting, in my perception, is the fact it lies under the spectrum of the religious taboo. It adds a certain kind of trill to know how thin the line can be between good and evil when it comes to religion. Throughout history most things that are related to darkness and evil have one way or another a certain influence of religious object. For example, churches that have a Gothic style serve as a place of worship, but at the same time they provoke a sense of horror because of its style. Similarly with angels that can be both painted as good creatures or as monsters. It is apparent that monsters and frightening things can derive and even be the creation of concepts that at one time were meant to only promote goodness such as religion itself. Is it even possible to create something monstrous out of something good?

Going back to Dybbuk, can it be considered a monster even if it is not tangible and when it is nothing else that a Folktale? Also, can the creators of it be considered the true monster?

Freddy Krueger

Freddy Krueger is the typical monster that provokes a feeling of disgust and rejection. He is, after all, meant to be a creation that unites detestable qualities. Not only is he physically repulsive, with his severely burnt skin, but is also regarded as sadistic serial killer. These characteristics, I believe were the reasons why I, as a little girl, was traumatized after watching A Nightmare on Elm Street. I was unable to regain my sleep for weeks . Every night, right after closing my eyes, I would have a vivid image of him wearing his green and red stripped sweater while holding his razor glove. At that moment I would instantly open my eyes. I couldn’t bear the idea that once asleep I would be dragged into a dream where there was the possibility of never waking up just as seen with the movie victims. However, as much as I resisted falling asleep I would inevitably do so after a few hours to soon be awaken by another nightmare. My fear, as a little girl, was specially a result of my feeling of vulnerability against his ability of only living in dreams making him unavoidable. The torture seemed to be eternal and it took me a long time to overcome the fear.

Evidently Krueger has characteristics of a typical monster, such as coming out during the night and having unnatural powers of deforming his own body. This, however, makes me wonder if just the mere fact he was a serial killer makes him a monster, can all serial killers be considered monsters or are they meant to have a form of physical defect? If so, are also supernatural powers such as the ones Freddy possessed of turning dreams into reality and immortality unnecessary to categorize someone as a monster? Moreover, it seems that most monsters, such as Freddy, become who they are as a result of a traumatizing experiences of their childhood. This drives me to my next concern of whether monsters are born or made, are they unfairly judged?