by Bryan Renfro

     So I just watched "The ABCs of Death", the 2012 horror anthology produced by Ant Timpson and Tim League. And what I quickly came to realize is, I like the concept of the project so much more then the finished assemblage of film.

     The cinematic concept is... the project will be divided into 26 individual chapters, each it's own short film - each film shot by a different director. So far, the pitch sounds interesting . The only specifics are that each short coordinates it's title with their chosen letter in the A.. B.. C... rundown. And to fulfill the horrific angle, each film must also involve death in some way, shape or form. But otherwise, the directors were given free rein as far as concept, plot, even visual style... are are completely left up the the creator of the individual short film. And artistically speaking, that seems like a dream come true. Filmmakers are free to follow their passion and give each segment their own signature look and feel of who they are as an artist. Well, that's a nice thought. But once you get past that lofty concept and actually sit down to watch the films, you see that like many people who are deemed "artists" by either themselves or society, most of the filmmakers involved in this project... are weirdos.

     Now maybe that term seems a little harsh, but I feel I have the freedom to use that word - being a weirdo myself. I'm sure I've been called that many a time, and I certainly lean toward the more artistic pursuits out there. So not only do I feel my taste for the unusual means I'm qualified to criticize, but more specifically - I feel like this sort of project was made for me. Or at least should have been.

     Once again, the idea of giving an artist liberty to do whatever they choose is something we all say that we want. Especially in the world of film, possibly the most corporatized artistic medium. Where directors will have some amazing, creative concept - and then quickly have it watered down by studio executives who care nothing for the integrity of the film, but only the profits it can return. So in theory... this type project seems like a dream come true. But you find that when left unfettered, many artists will drift out into the sea of their insanity... and weirdness.

     And this theory certainly comes into play in "The ABCs of Death". What could have been an amazing collection of creepy short films, instead becomes a conglomeration of grossness. And not that gross is essentially bad in film. There are plenty of scenes out there that would be considered "gross" that I think are amazing. But what I have never been impressed with is the idea of "gross for the sake of gross". And what surprised me from this group of seemingly competent horror directors, is that they didn't stray too far into the blood and gore for my taste - but more into the toilet humor. Which I found very strange. That is so far from where I would have expected a cool horric-centric project like this to go. And when I say "toilet humor", no literally - many, many of the films actually involve a toilet! What's up with that? You could easily say that there is something Freudian at work here. I mean, Freud did specifically point out that waste is a child's first production. So in a sad way... have many of these directors just not strayed very far?

     But I suppose some of those involved at least graduate to the next level of psychosexual adulthood. Once the child has exhausted their fascination with waste products they discover their genitals. Again, our old chauvinistic pal Freud would label this "the phallic stage" (even though the phase is supposed to apply to both sexes). And that does in fact become one of the other central themes of many of the films in "The ABCs of Death". And not that I have a problem with nudity in film. Hell, the art form itself was built on having an excuse to convince girls to get naked. For "artistic purposes" of course. But it's the way that it is used in many of these films that seems sad. Much like the gross-out factor, sex and nudity is thrown around in a way that seems less like pushing artistic boundaries and more like a desperate way to get someone to look at what you are doing. I mean, by the final film when you have two naked woman fighting each other, one wielding a giant two-foot penis with a blade sticking out of the end, while the opposing woman counters her attack by firing vegetables from her genitalia... well, it's far from subtle.

     So what I think I found most disappointing about this whole grouping of films was not just that so many of them end up centering around these same low-level central themes. But more specifically, that none of the filmmakers were given instructions... they just did that all on their own. And I'm assuming none of them knew what the other directors were working on until the entire project was finished. And again, they all kept hitting on the same easy motifs. What eventually occurred to me was... if you give filmmakers some money and freedom to do whatever they want - they all become 12-year-old boys! Slap-stick humor is the ONLY kind of humor, and nudity and bodily functions are the funniest things in the world. I guess it is fair to note at this point, that all but one of the films in this grouping were in fact directed by men. So essentially... it's true. Many of them, I suppose, just reverted back to their former selves.

     Now, I'm assuming I've come across with quite a negative opinion on this movie, but that's not true across the board. It's just sort of a shadow that falls across the whole of the project. But I will say, I'm definitely glad I watched it. There are some gems scattered among the stones here. "C is for Cycle" is a fun little situation that works great in this type of short. And I became fascinated with "D is for Dogfight", directed by Marcel Sarmiento. There are some striking visuals presented and all in a simple plot that seems like something no one would be "ok" with. But this one stuck with me more then almost any other film in this piece. And praise must be given to Riley, the dog featured in this short. He delivers some amazing reaction shots. I'm not sure how you get a dog to give you a performance like that. It was some of the best acting out of all the films presented. So points go to both Riley and Marcel for making that happen.

     Angela Bettis, being the previously mentioned lone female director, turns in a fun short that I wish would have had a little more runtime. I would have like to have seen more from her. Similarly, Ti West gives us little of his work. I've been impressed with his feature films and I usually look to him to deliver interesting and unconventional horror. But in this incident, it seemed like he was trying to find the fastest way to get out of this project. Not really enough footage to even decide whether it was good or bad... it's just over and we move on.

     "N is for Nuptials" is possibly the funniest of the bunch. While many attempt some form of silly humor, this short finds a simple way to present a humorous and eventually awkward situation. And along those lines, "Q is for Quack" runs a close second by being the most meta film of the group, and showing the writers/directors of the film actually on-screen talking about what they should make their film about. And "X is for XXL" at least seems to have something to say, and it takes an almost "Tales from the Crypt" manner of making it's point.

     So there are many good short films to watch out of this... several that are a little more forgettable - and then the rest get grouped back in with all the weirdness. And much like I said about the gross factor, the other thing I'm never impressed with is "weird for the sake of weird". I don't mind people working the strange and unusual into their stories. In fact, I usually response favorably to it... if it's done well. But it has to be in service of the story itself, not just a plea for attention. And that's what seems to come up a lot in this movie. Trying to be extreme, just for the sake of saying you did it.

     Or a few topics come off almost as purely self-indulgent. As though a key piece of the story is something lodged deep within the creators brain... and is so weird that it doesn't really apply to anyone else. "L is for Libido", "Y is for Youngbuck" and the complete insanity that is "Z is for Zetsumetsu", while all being graphically interesting are good examples of that disturbing indulgence. Some moments seem like they would be best kept as a lewd fantasy tucked away in the creator's psyche, rather then spilled out onto the screen for everyone to see. But I guess that can be said about many works of art throughout the ages.

     I will say pretty much all of the films look good. They are well-shot and most directors do have a real sense of visual style. It's just a few too many of them don't back it up with a plot interesting enough to warrant the level of weirdness they are grasping for. So if you have patience enough to sit through the films you don't like as much, this project is still worth watching to see the high points (which will probably vary depending on your taste).