Published on 12, July, 2020
Many of you will probably be aware of the 'Slenderman' phenomenon. 'Slenderman' was created as part of a PhotoShop competition in 2009, whose remit was to create convincing and frightening paranormal figures. He's a very simple figure: an extremely tall man, dressed in a dark suit with shirt and tie. He's faceless, too - perhaps his most striking and sinister feature. Sometimes, he's depicted with tentacles spiraling out of his back. He lives in a mansion deep in a dark forest. He stalks children and takes them back to his mansion - either to kill them, or to keep them as 'proxies': personal servants who are dedicated to him.
Since his creation as an image, 'Slenderman' has developed into a powerful urban myth. The mythology has spread around the world via the internet - especially through sites like Creepypasta Wiki, where stories and images were first posted. He's very much an archetype, found throughout mythology and folk tales, and across cultures. Think of figures like Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, the Boogey-man, The Thing, Melmoth, the Wandering Jew, the Yeti, the Sasquatch, etc. Perhaps the closest model would be the Grimm's brothers' fairy tale The Pied Piper of Hamelin. The Pied Piper was a strange figure who turned up out of nowhere to help the citizens of Hamelin with their rat problem. He lured the rats away to their deaths with a pipe tune. The town councillors had promised to reward him for this. But they cheated him. So... he got his own back by playing another tune and luring all of the town's children away with him to a secret mountain, where he kept them. 'Slenderman' is similar to the Pied Piper in that his intentions are enigmatic and uncertain. Is he acting for good or evil? Or both? Perhaps the most important and powerful thing about him is that he can be whatever anyone wants him to be. He can be different things to different people. Creepypasta Wiki reflects this, with the users posting their own interpretations in images, home videos, and fan fiction. He taps into all sorts of human fears and insecurities... and also our need, perhaps, for some kind of superhero figure or monster to believe in. He's usually seen in images and videos as a furtive figure, lurking in the background. Is he merely observing at a distance? Or is he coming to get you? With no facial expression to go on... who knows?
The power of this myth, and the way it can lead people to blur the lines between reality and fiction, can be compared to something like the character of Sherlock Holmes. Holmes was created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in the late 19th century. We know this. If he had existed as a real person, he'd be dead now, anyway. Either that or he'd be a highly improbable 160 or so years of age. But again, he didn't exist. And yet... people still write to him from around the world at his fictional address of 221b Baker Street!
As we know, the people most susceptible to believing in such myths are normally children. Santa Claus. The Tooth Fairy. Superman. It's powerful stuff to them. You may also, therefore, be aware of the recent case in the US, where two young girls - Morgan Geyser and Anissa Weier - have been tried for the attempted murder of a friend of theirs, Payton Leutner. All three girls were twelve at the time of the incident, in 2014. Geyser and Weier (who were complicit in the plan) lured Leutner into some woods, where Geyser stabbed her 19 times. They then ran off and left her. Leutner miraculously survived the attack and was found. The other two were later arrested walking along a highway. During the investigation, it came out that both girls had been obsessed with the 'Slenderman' stories and firmly believed in his existence. They maintained they committed the act to protect their families, because they had come to believe that 'Slenderman' was going to kill them. When they left Leutner after the attack, they were supposed to be making their way to the forest that they believed 'Slenderman' lived in. They wanted to find his mansion, tell him what they had done to appease him, and live with him as 'proxies'.
It's a very sad, disturbing and distressing case. Geyser, it transpires, is schizophrenic. She inherited it from her father - though hers is a far more severe condition. She had delusions and hallucinations, and was incapable of separating fact from fiction. Weier was a loner. An introverted child without friends, who found escape in her iPad, where she discovered 'Slenderman'. When she met Geyser, they became inseparable, and shared the obsession. Both girls are still only 15, but were tried under the adult jurisdiction. Geyser has been committed to 40 years in a mental institution, Weier to 25 years. The outcome, too, has thrown computer use for young children into a harsh spotlight. I won't comment on that. It all gets covered in this remarkable documentary about the case. If you can steel yourselves to watch it, it's a fascinating insight into the power of myth - and perhaps a wake-up call about where technology might be taking our children if it shuts them off from the world, or if they escape into it if the world shuns them.
Beware The Slenderman
American Psycho was great. I found the dialogue hilarious. Very dark humour and adult content, but how can you not like a film where a guy is lecturing prostitutes about how Genesis was better after Peter Gabriel left the group. The book is much darker and there are a few more disturbing parts the movie left out, the film however is hilarious in parts. The part with the business card is hilarious too.
The Thing is a complete classic. The visual effects were all practical, Rob Bottin is a genius. His work on the effects still look great to this day, better than a lot of todays CGI. The soundtrack is great too, Morricone using 80's synths is minimal but sinister.
Aliens is one of my favourite films ever. A cross between an action movie, sci-fi, and horror. It's one of the peaks of mainstream film.
Shutter Island was also "meh" in my opinion. I was very disappointed. Scorcese directing and a good cast but it was just a glossy mess imo.
It's pretty horrible. Another film I found terrifying was After Lucia, a Mexican movie. The theme of people being the "monster" was more scary. Again there's no horror or gore, just cruel people. The book of American Psycho was far more insidious than the film, the films funny imo.
I think they also overdo the monster when it emerges. Less is more I think.
The Blair Witch Project was good because it was all about shadows, things inferred.
One of the best films I ever watched was the TV version of the Woman in Black. So much more subtle than the Harry Potter version.
Alien is brilliant. Some of the sequels almost reach that standard, others not so. I have plenty of time for SF and noir too. One recent gem, both book and film, was Never Let me Go.
I read 'American Psycho'. Yes, it's pretty sadistic with the violence - but I came to the conclusion that it was all a fantasy of the narrator. The film is worth watching.
I'm not a big fan of horror films. I always think they miss something. Maybe it's when you actually get to see the monster or whatever. 'The Shining' was a failure in comparison to the book, I think. I liked the TV mini-series of 'Salem's Lot', though. Favourites in the genre would have to be 'The Thing' (both the first version, then the John Carpenter version) and - without a doubt - 'Alien' and 'Aliens'. I agree about the cliches in most horror or ghost films. I think it's what you don't see that's scarier. That's why I quite liked 'The Blair Witch Project'.
I find the Slenderman figure quite creepy, and it's that 'unknown' thing about him, as has been suggested. He seems at once both innocent and harmless, and sinister and threatening.
The best recent film I saw that I found quite disturbing is 'Nightcrawler', starring a very emaciated Jake Gyllenhaal. 'The Machinist', too - starring an equally emaciated Christian Bale, is an excellent psychological thriller with horror movie tropes. People rave about 'Shutter Island'. I've tried watching it twice, and switched it off each time. I think it's a mess.
It does sound horrific. I know someone who bought the book American Psycho, but he could not finish it because of its sadistic violence. It is supposed to be a satire on 80's materialism.
Always looking for good film ideas.
I use Facebook but I don't trust it. And I suspect Zuckerberg likes his power and has no scruples about using others for his own gain. I have friends old and new there. but suspect in the future many will turn to face to face due to the public surveillance thing but even turned off smartphones may be able to snoop I hear.
Snowdon may be the tip of the iceberg. Where I am the government has paid trolls to spread propaganda and it is definitely definitely on the use Facebook to influence trail. And in the UK May brought in the Snooper's Charter and with some of her other proposals I suspect a bullet got dodged when she list her majority in the last election. Total control freak.
Bicycle said:I like to think I'm pretty discerning with content, but I've been caught out a couple of times with stuff that's been posted - a combination of image, textual quote and 'source' - that's actually been completely false.
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it's difficult to discern if they are genuine." Winston Churchill
Yes it goes for the slowing subtle approach. A similar flick is Jake's Closet told even more from the kid's point of view, but that is much tamer compared to this.
Slow and suspenseful! I wish I could edit here
What is Mama? The Barbados is on and suspenseful
I enjoyed it, up to a point. It was over-long, in my opinion, and the sense of menace became dissipated. But it was very good at playing to those old childhood fears. And the 'monster' was very creepy and effective. It was certainly better than a lot of these Hollywood haunted house flicks, with their usual cliches.
Is the Babadook anything like Mama? I loved Mama.
Often we build up our fears early! The scariest film I've ever seen was In The Company of Men. No one gets killed, stabbed or are there any assaults done. It's terribly cruel though. A sociopath ruining peoples lives with emotional manipulation. Chilling.
Nice! Very nice, it reminds me of something from a Tarkovsky film. Very ominous, visceral and sinister but without anything but bloody. Subtle.
I think the guy posted Slenderman on SA first.
In reply to you both. Facebook has been selling details for years to dubious people. I've even heard of them revealing details of dissidents, people who's lives are at risk. Data harvesting is a big part of the internet now. Even Mozilla are now in the same bracket as Google, Facebook and Microsoft. Lenovo packaged their PC's a few years ago with data harvesting programs masked as junkware. I'm not even paranoid this is all out in the open. Even NoScript was caught out. Tech has become more intrusive as time as gone on due I think to the average tech user not going through the process of years of change. Looking at the way smartphones have become more important to most people than eating food, most of them don't even understand how much their lives have been infiltrated by technology. The dependence factor also disturbs me.
I remember going back to the internet of old. Things like ICQ and IRC channels actually made you have some knowledge of the way the program worked. Nowadays on devices such as Iphones and Android it's just tap, install and go. People don't have to think what the device does, well they are given the impression that's the case.
MySpace died a death but it wasn't as intrusive as Facebook but just for the sake of a slicker GUI people jumped onto Facebook. I never had an account on either but I saw both. The thing that distubed me most about Facebook was that I saw in the t's and c's that anything posted there became the "intellectual property of Facebook". Think about that. It's a pretty obscured term. So peoples personal data is no longer defined as such it has now become someone else's "intellectual property". If there are any lawsuits against them I have a suspicion this obscure term will become part of their defence. Photo's, conversations, details, and so on and so on. The data mining aspect is indefensible, such as them harvesting contacts from devices and using camera access. I say indefensible but people opt in if they give their device permissions for an app to use the permissions. Indefensible in the court of public opinion but not so much in a court of law. Everytime over the years Facebook have e-mailed and informed people of their data policy changes. People just clicked past it or ignored it because they were more concerned with their Facebook page than their privacy. I've heard rumbles of a 1bn fine for Facebook but IF they have to pay that's just a drop in the ocean.
People have opted into having an Orwellian Big Brother screen in their pocket in most cases and pay for the "privilege". A young child can have a device that has a program installed on it that can film them at anytime because people don't understand or care about the way the program works. Simplified access to tech is great but when things were more complicated people understood the way things worked more.
I use a lot of programs people call old or rickety. I have barely any social media presence. I have a talk and text phone. People say I'm behind the times but I've seen the way things have been slowly creeping. A lot of people that have been on the internet longer than 10 years and use more techy websites have seen this going on. This week everyone has been going on about the Facebook thing but it's because it's linked to Trump. The Democrats did the same things, if not worse. I don't have any alliegance to either side. They've both been doing it though. It's just that the media jump on Trump. Zuckerberg has been offloading stock left, right and centre the last few months. Then this scandal has been conveniently "uncovered". Then everyones Facebook seems to have been "hacked" within a week, that's just Zuckerbergs way of burning it down and running with his stock money. I'm not even a conspiracy type of guy, offloading that much stock before such a scandal just seems obviously suspect.
This week has made me glad I never opted into the madness. People were duped.
I've discussed pornography with my children and know that the older two (18 and 24) have seen examples of it in the past. The youngest (13) has seen things online that, while not strictly pornographic, aren't exactly TV viewing either. (As I said, I do monitor her phone.)
I've talked about these things with each of them including the difference between sex and making love and they don't all always share my views (which are similar to yours) on the subject but they have explained their views to me and listened to mine.
I have never 'told off' my daughters for looking at these (or other) things and when I saw the things my youngest was looking at I explained to her (as with her sisters) that if she was old enough to look at it / do it / make jokes about it, then she was also old enough to have a rational discussion about it with her parents. Exactly the same as I have for anything else they have encountered online or heard about at school.
I challenge their views and opinions and they mine. I think it's healthy. If either of my children make a decision to involve themselves with something I don't agree with, at least I can be assured that they've given it enough thought and consideration to be able to justify that choice. I would hope that this would stand them in good stead when deciding what to buy into in relation to anything they encounter, whether online or in the real world.
We're all capable of being taken in occasionally though, it's human nature to want to trust or to seek confirmation for opinions we already hold regardless of new evidence to the contrary, but each time we are taken in it's a learning curve. 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me' holds true so if people are repeatedly conned / swindled / tricked by the same source / type of thing, they've allowed that to happen.
I've got The Babadook to watch later. I post my pictures on Deviant Art.
There are probably lots of antecedents that could have influenced her. I remember, as a young child (about 6 or 7), accidentally seeing the scene from Psycho where Janet Leigh is stabbed in the shower. It was being shown on a TV programme, Cinema, late one night. This was in the early 60s. My parents were watching it, and I'd got up and crept upstairs. They didn't realise I was standing in the room behind them until I cried out in horror at what I was seeing. That scene haunted me for a long time, and I obsessed over the idea of people being stabbed to death. Even now, when I hear of a 'knife crime', it always strikes me with more horror than any other form of violent crime.
Endymion said:Blocking content from my children would only work up to a point and, I believe, would also block any chance of discussing these things openly with them.
How would you feel about them viewing pornography? Just asking. Kids have a natural curiosity, of course. When I was 13, I used to try peeking in the windows of porno book shops. The first time I actually got hold of a porn magazine - very soft-core compared to what you can now view on Pornhub and Redtube - was when I was 16. I was in my mid-20s before I actually saw a porn film, and again it was nothing like the graphic stuff you can now see just through typing a few letters and clicking a button. There are all sorts of arguments about what pornography represents: demeaning of women, devaluing of loving relationships, etc. I find it all a bit ludicrous now. There isn't much of a narrative to it. It's basically just about people doing what people do, and mostly motivated by animal lusts rather than love. That sounds a bit old-fashioned, I know. But I suppose I was brought up to believe in an idea of being in love, then 'making love.' I don't think I could ever have sexual relations with someone that I didn't love. It could never be just a casual bit of fun, or something paid for for personal gratification. I'd always end up emotionally involved in some way. I guess that points to emotional immaturity, which I readily admit to having - even though I'm over 60! Or maybe not...
I am sure it Cambridge Analytica had something to do with Brexit. There was quite a bit about this published in The Guardian a while back and I don't know why it is breaking as a scandal only now.
You could suspect if by the sheer amount of cliched troll speke you hear on social media from certain sources: get on with it. Remoaners. The will of the people. And so on.
I always found the technology of smartphones incredibly exciting. I had a sharp pocket computer in the day, the a Zion, then a Mio. But when one of my richer students came flaunting her Apple I phone, I wslas gobsmacked. And green with envy. But eventually I got a Samsung Omnia.
I read a science fiction tale in the 80's that predicted a future Utopia where everyone would have a computer in their pocket they could communicate with, called s Jenner.
It was wrong alas about the Utopia. I suppose we should not be surprised that in a present more dystopic than not, the smartphone could prove to be a curse as much as a blessing. Must say I am more worried about the Big Brother potential for its misuse than being manipulated in other ways. There was never any danger I would have voted for Brexit even if I had wanted to but the UK had anyway, already decided I am no longer a true blue resident of Albion.
For kids I agree they are a disaster. I am always having to threaten to confiscate the things. In the US there was an experiment to see if they could stay off for more than 6 hours. They couldn't. Some of the girls were threatening suicide.