Newspapers, magazines; periodicals in general are the closest thing we have to time travel. Journalism is the only art form (because yes, we should call it that) that is traditionally and ideally objective -- a true account of a time & place without all those pesky abstractions you get with TV, books, music, etc.

You buy that? I sure-as-shit hope so because that was 100% more psychobabble than I wanted to include in a post about published pigs' blood from the past. (I'm just tryna make you part of my world.)

"Horror Magazines" have been around since before Christ - largely in the 'pulp fiction' kinda sense. But the kind I wanna talk about - the kind I like - are their own subgenre of infotainment: the Horror Movie magazine. Because of various fanzines and underground stuff, it's hard to be positive when such a thing was actually invented - but I think it's more-than-fair to place all the blame on Famous Monsters of Filmland. It started in 1958 and, more or less, is still kinda going today (look it up). If you've never perused, it's pretty much what you're used to: articles and interviews dealing with current and classic Horror films, complete with neat pictures and striking cover artwork -- and it was all for kids.
Suffice to say it was a 'pioneer' in this very, very specific little area of interest, as it spawned enough fans and imitators until the interest was not-so-little. Which (finally) brings me to me, and if you're anything like me (I know I am), you've spent your life "sampling" all these different versions of what has ultimately been the same thing.

I think we've pushed the big "F" enough that we can take a break for this round (but a short break, dammit) and focus on some of this other literature that's been trembling under the weight of obscurity for too long. Not that there's anything too unconventional here, but I'll definitely let you know which ones are worth eBaying the back issues and which you can stick next to the toilet so your guests can learn all about Maniac Cop III while they shit.

- Paul

This was 'the other red meat.' A "sister" magazine to Fangoria, it basically was Fangoria with very little variance between the two; it was "I Can't Believe It's Not Fango."

But still, the point of the magazine was - you guessed it - more gore -- or rather, specifically gore, as in it focused exclusively on the FX side of Cinema. All Cinema.

Issue no. 26 illustrates the far reaches of bloody films around this time with a refreshingly prophetic article/interview with talented new director Quentin Tarantino - discussing Dogs and his then-yet-to-be-produced vampire movie. 

It ran only 27 issues, but that was the timeframe (88-93) that it should've existed - that was peak carnage-in-movies time, and it was presented in these pages with the same confrontational color and gnarly eloquence as its big sister. Plus, that kickass logo is worthy of a tattoo! (or at least a t-shirt.)
Grade: A

You might already know this one, as it's the most popular on this list. It's also still in publication and distributed globally, so I'd hope you've at least seen it.

I discovered it in the mid 2000s, right around the time Fangoria was (I felt) circling the drain - so there was a bit of a rebound infatuation that came with it. Still though, it's incredibly dense and informative - even if it is a little drab. But I suppose the drabness goes along with the dark/gothic angle that the title implies.

If it specializes in anything specific, it's their exhaustive articles celebrating obscure and forgotten avenues of the macabre - so obscure that I'm guaranteed to walk away with some new knowledge from each issue.

If I had one mild complaint, it's that it's Canadian: and all that means is that various release dates and availabilities don't always line up with my geographical condition. 
Grade: A-

It's like Woman's Day, but for genre fans.

Not really, but as you've deduced, this magazine focuses on women in the industry - and by "focus," I mean, like, 100X magnification.

I suppose people classify it as a "Men's Magazine" (which is fair - it is pretty sexy to the heterosexual male), but it's especially sexy to a film fan. Granted, there are full-page publicity shots and pinup-style spreads of pretty girls, but these girls generally have extensive film & TV resumes, and the mag goes to meticulous lengths to discuss them all. And so, naughty pictures aside, I'd say this book isn't for lightweights. But if you're really ready to expand your knowledge of everything from Summer Blockbusters to Direct-to-Video features, dive head first into these babies - and there's plenty to look at along the way.
Grade: B+

This one is a bit of a question mark to me; I don't really know how long it ran or even what their 'gimmick' really was. But what I can tell you from its pages is that they were legitimately interested in 'monster news' more than 'slaughter porn.'

Not to say it was the toddlers' version of Fangoria (though this issue does hold the most in-depth article about Little Monsters that I've come across), because they do still cover all the big, gory headliners of the era - they just weren't keen on shots of eyeball paste and entrail art. So in hindsight it's easy to see why it didn't last while the competition was so dirty - but now, speaking for the old man that is myself, I'm quite capable of getting arousal outta this subject matter (even without the freaky stuff).
Grade: B+

I'll be honest: I bought this for the provocative Scout Taylor-Compton cover, but my expectations as far as content and character were already at the morgue; the comedy of "look how tasteless we are" holds no water with me.

So it was quite the pleasant surprise when it managed to stay in its seat and behave like the good piece of pulp that it is. The cheapness bleeds through (and not in a fun punk rock way, but more like a "we don't really understand graphic design" kinda way), but it made sense once I realized that the main job of the mag is to highlight and showcase otherwise-unknown artists in the Horror community; calling attention to all kindsa painting, photography, fiction, film, et al. There are some sporadic 'goth girl cheesecake' treats that are pretty tame and by-the-numbers, but the attractive stuff really is the generosity it extends to folks trying to make a name for themselves - in turn, entertaining us with an eclectic gallery showing.
Grade: B


This is the toughest one to describe - mostly because I think they didn't really know what they had -- and by "they," I mean the plucky publishers at Starlog. That's right: this is another one of Fango's "sisters" that popped in there at a peak pop culture era - literally sitting on the racks next to its siblings. I mean, it could totally hold its own in terms of style, but not substance; still with the big, splashy, colorful pages, but often the content of the articles (and even how they're placed within the structure of the book) manages to be disorienting (which is a notable failure for a teen trash rag with arrestingly simple subject matter).

When it covered movies, it was the same old pieces with the same old interviewees, but in between those were stuff like true crime accounts, tales of bizarre incidents, and dopey comic strips and short stories. I love the 'mixed bag' approach, but the execution was aimless and sloppy, and the focus was weak.
Grade: B-

This magazine, on the other hand, is very direct in its approach - even if the title is a little misleading.

Like Femme Fatales, it is scrupulous in detailing the careers of the featured actresses - but it quite often veers away from the agreed-upon definition of "Scream Queen." Granted, they make the most out of an interview/photoshoot with the likes of Michelle Bauer, Julie Strain, or Linnea, but the cream of each issue is the extensive career retrospectives of then-current stars of all low-budget cable and DTV entertainment - not just Horror.

So if any of you other elderly perverts are into full frontal photos of Lisa Boyle, Becky LeBeau, or Lorissa McComas, and you're as excited to learn more about them as I, then you're probably already reading it.
Grade: A-

I've saved the best for last. Like, the really really best.

When I discovered it back around '06, it single-handedly revived my waning interest in the genre -- and the way it did that was with up-to-the-minute news re. various areas of merchandise: specifically physical media and toys; basically the kinda information one could find on the internet if they actively searched for it - whereas this was all in its own concise mode of delivery. 

And so while it helped to further my quest for new/old Cinema, as well as amass material possessions that enflamed this 'reawakening,' it simultaneously celebrated all things Horror in a shamelessly nostalgic way: detailed retrospectives, lists, contests, quizes, and general esoteric musings that solidified the fact that this magazine was made by the people, for the people. 

All of this amounted to the book's only real blemish: they don't really dislike anything; there's no discretion or discrimination for them when it comes to "Horror" with a capital 'H.' They are shameless in their adoration of any & everything that exists under that very broad headline, so that even if something may not live up to any kind of standard, it's still solid, because if this were 1988, you'd slap that little green "HORROR" sticker on it. 

But that's ok. This is a brand of subjective objectivity that is in no way dangerous or harmful to others; to put it bluntly, this is the most happy & upbeat glorification of blood & guts that you're ever gonna find. And I think that is just aces. 
Grade: A+

No comments:

Related Posts with Thumbnails