This was a news outfit once heralded as the future of journalism, and a bona fide threat to the likes of the New York Times. Now it’s been shuttered because it never made money and its owner says it can’t figure out how it ever would.
For most people, the villains of BuzzFeed News’s story are the same people we blame for the demise of any digital media publication that had its go-go days between 2010 and 2017 or so. You’ve seen lists like this before:
Misguided media executives
Rapacious investors
Fickle platforms like Facebook
And the nice thing about this kind of blame game is that any answer you choose — including all of the above — will be at least truthy. Media founders and executives did raise too much money from investors who did have outsized expectations that were spurred on tacitly and explicitly by the likes of Facebook.
Then when things turned — when it became clear that the money publishers spent generating content meant to engage Facebook’s audience wasn’t going to be covered by advertisers and that Facebook itself didn’t really care whether those publishers were happy about it — things turned quickly.
But you can also look at all of those same facts and reach a different, less comfortable conclusion. Many, if not most, of these publications wouldn’t have existed without the combined collusion by the usual suspects.
The anomaly isn’t that the likes of BuzzFeed News, Mashable, Mic, Vice, and many others have struggled or disappeared entirely in recent years. Vice, for example, is reportedly preparing to file for bankruptcy just a few years after being valued at $5.7 billion. It’s that they were able to get as large as they were — measured by workforce or buzz or valuation — in the first place.
This isn’t a novel insight. And even at the time it was happening — when we collectively told ourselves that this time, money-losing media businesses really could make it up on volume — there were people in the middle of it raising red flags. Gawker Media owner Nick Denton, for instance, didn’t take on venture capitalists’ investments when his peers did, and frequently bemoaned the Facebook fueled-growth of his competitors. (Until he stopped moaning about it and tried it out for himself.)
But even so, Denton told me recently, Gawker would have been unlikely to have survived the digital media boom of the last decade. “I don’t think anybody really could have made it through intact,” he said.
“I think the big shift was the discovery of digital media as a category and the infusion of vast amounts of capital. That really started with the AOL acquisition of Huffington Post in 2011 and the Andreessen investment in BuzzFeed [in 2014],” Denton explained. “Transactions like that, transactions in the early period of the teens that really caused costs to increase, and caused all of our ambitions to inflate — and ultimately led to a reckoning. In our case, the reckoning of legal costs that we couldn’t withstand, and in other people’s case, other competitive pressures.”
Denton’s comments came during a conversation that I believe most participants didn’t think would actually happen, right up until it did: a podcast taping between Denton, BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti, and journalist Ben Smith, whose book Traffic details the rise and decline of both Denton’s and Peretti’s companies.
Smith was particularly surprised by the chat, since he never spoke directly to Denton himself while reporting his book. Denton, who has kept a very low profile since 2016, only communicated to Smith via text messages and emails.
You can hear the entire conversation — taped a couple days after Peretti announced he was shuttering BuzzFeed News after years of investor pressure to cauterize the money-losing operation — on the newest episode of Recode Media.
And yes, this is, in part, a nostalgia exercise, aimed at a not-super-tiny group of people who felt passionately, one way or another, about the likes of BuzzFeed and Gawker a decade ago (I was one of those people because I was both working at and covering digital media startups myself).
But it’s also aimed at people thinking about the next wave of media companies and how they can avoid the pitfalls of their predecessors.
Smith, for instance, is six months into the launch of Semafor, a news startup aimed at plugged-in people and the people who’d like to advertise to those people. And he’s trying to do so when lots of the tools a media startup relied on in the past — referral traffic from Facebook and Google, buzz from Twitter — are severely crippled. Bonus wrinkle: He and his business partner Justin Smith also need to replace $10 million in funding that was supposed to be supplied by former crypto king Sam Bankman-Fried. (Disclosure: In August 2022, SBF’s philanthropic family foundation, Building a Stronger Future, awarded Vox’s Future Perfect a grant for a 2023 reporting project. That project is now on pause.)
My severely timid prediction: Both Smith and Peretti will have to muddle through something that looks a little bit like what they predicted, while making a lot of accommodations to reality.
BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith and Jonah Peretti at the 2015 Code Conference.Asa Matt for Recode
Peter Kafka
Jonah, I’m talking to you in late April, a couple of days after you shuttered BuzzFeed News. You had a memo explaining your decision. I want to quote from that because I think it’s relevant to this whole conversation: “I made the decision to overinvest in BuzzFeed News because I loved their work and mission so much. This made me slow to accept that the big platforms wouldn’t provide the distribution or financial support required to support premium free journalism, purpose-built for social media.”
Wasn’t there a way to create a large, important, meaningful, free publication that didn’t require Facebook or Google or another platform to actively support it? Is there some other way you could have pulled this off?
Jonah Peretti
I mean, HuffPost is profitable and doing well. And being able to focus our news efforts for BuzzFeed Inc behind HuffPost made a lot of sense given the way that social has changed.
Although it is true: Over many years, BuzzFeed News lost a lot of money. And I love Ben and I love all the amazing work that we did together. It wasn’t the most fruitful financial partnership. We spent a lot of money defending lawsuits. We had advertisers pull because of our coverage. We spent a lot on amazing journalists and investigations that were beyond, you know, the sort of logic of profitability.
And we did that for a lot of different reasons, but I think when you look at the current environment, the ending of BuzzFeed News is a new beginning for both HuffPost as well as some of the other initiatives that we’re doing with creators and AI and other things that are starting to really grow in the Internet.
Peter Kafka
I want to get to the future in a bit, but just to stick with the past: Is there an alternate version where you create BuzzFeed News but you don’t do it dependent on infusions of investor cash? And so the thing grows slower. You hire less people, you still make great journalism, you just do less of it. And then you have a viable news operation in 2023.
Jonah Peretti
I think there are people who did that. There’s some examples of what you’re describing. We were just excited about this amazing explosion of audience that was happening on these social platforms and the lack of quality news on those platforms and feeling this need of reaching millions of people on the platforms where they were and giving them quality news. And that approach worked for a while.
I think what you’re seeing now is there’s a lot of news fatigue, and people want to navigate directly to news and spend time on news when they’re in the mood for it. And the BuzzFeed business of lists and quizzes and entertainment works great on social.
That business is really working. It’s just [that] news is special and different. It’s more expensive. And it’s also something that people only want in certain moments and not necessarily when they’re trying to blow off steam and entertain themselves and kill time and connect with friends.
Peter Kafka
Ben, your book covers roughly a 15-year span, mostly in New York, when digital media was booming, largely dominated by Gawker and BuzzFeed. And you were there — you were the editor of BuzzFeed News when it was on its ascent. You write in your book: “This book has been, for me, a humbling exercise in what I missed, even when I was there.” What was the one big thing you missed back then?
Ben Smith
Oh, a million things. As Jonah said, there was a real logic when we started BuzzFeed News. We’d had a kind of brand logic and we thought of who BuzzFeed was. But we weren’t thinking about being profitable, and we should have, obviously.
In retrospect, if you had that back, we could have and should have spent less money and made more. Particularly starting in the 2015-2016 period, when it needed to mature. And that’s on Jonah, and it’s on me.
I was a bit of an outsider in the early 2000s, when Jonah was going to cool parties at Nick’s house and I was wishing I was invited. And I copied a lot of Gawker in particular when I was a young political blogger. But I also wasn’t paying that close attention and didn’t really understand what either of these guys was doing in terms of changing the media business, reacting to these huge trends.
To me, some of the most revelatory stuff was looking back at Jezebel in 2007 and just seeing how that kind of blew that whole world of women’s media open — how freaked out by it these powerful glossies were.
Peter Kafka
Remind people who weren’t in that world what Jezebel was.
Ben Smith
So Nick Denton was interested in starting a women’s blog because women’s media is this huge category commercially, among other things. And also it was unbelievably sclerotic and disruptable. And Anna Holmes, who Nick hired, was this very alienated product of the women’s magazines and came in to blow them up. Whether around frank conversations about the way women actually felt or around there not being any black models in the magazines.
Their audience had this unbelievably intense kind of parasocial relationship with them that made them obsessed with their jobs, but also drove them totally nuts. And it felt like, “Oh my God, they were living inside Twitter in 2007” and just the crucible of social media and identity and politics playing out like that. That was almost the first place that I realized it was playing out, which was really interesting to me, and I knew nothing about it at the time.
Peter Kafka
Nick, Ben gives you a lot of credit in the book for seeing the future, even if sometimes you didn’t understand you were seeing the future, like in the Jezebel case.
Obviously, you were forced into bankruptcy because you lost the Hulk Hogan sex tape court case, financed by billionaire Peter Thiel. If we excised that tape from Gawker Media’s history, where is Gawker now? Is it a standalone company? What do you do with Gawker in 2023?
Nick Denton
Are there any companies from the list of digital darlings of that period that still stand completely intact? The Daily Beast is for sale. BuzzFeed News sadly had to cut back. Vice is leaderless. I don’t know whether a Gawker would have made it. Gizmodo might have.
But I think this is a bigger shift, and I don’t think anybody really could have made it through intact.
Peter Kafka
Underline what that shift was. Because for a while, you guys were taking advantage of the fact that you were the shift. Right? You were the upstarts, you were challenging the sclerotic publishers Ben’s talking about. So what’s the shift that would have made it impossible for Gawker to survive in 2023?
Transactions like that, transactions in the early period of the teens that really caused costs to increase, and caused all of our ambitions to inflate. And ultimately led to a reckoning. In our case, the reckoning of legal costs that we couldn’t withstand. And in other people’s case, other competitive pressures.
Peter Kafka
So if digital media sort of remained a kind of a backwater and people with money don’t get excited and don’t decide to invest in it, we’d have a different reality today?
Nick Denton
Gawker had a good four, eight, 10 years without a huge amount of heavily funded competition. I mean, there was the Huffington Post [co-founded by Peretti] — we were definitely very aware of that. And even that amount of competition really changed the nature of the sites that were in the market.
I remember — Jonah, correct me if I’m wrong — but I remember a coffee or a lunch with you at Balthazar, where you said that if Gawker continued to tie our targets to page views — just the satisfaction of our core subscribers — that we were going to miss out on the growth that would come if we targeted unique visitors.
And that seems like a technical distinction. But I feel that my competitive instincts were sharpened in that time. And, you know, we did as you had advised. And we grew as a result. But sometimes I look back at that as being a juncture.
Peter Kafka
That discussion is in Ben’s book, and it seems like a very technical discussion. So why does shifting what a publisher focuses on from page views — the number of times a story is served up to anyone — to uniques, which is theoretically measuring how many times individual people visited a site, why does that matter?
Nick Denton
Before I do that, can I just give Jonah the chance to correct me if my recollection of that was wrong?
Jonah Peretti
No, we did talk about that. And we also had that conversation about the difference between indie rock and hip-hop where …
Nick Denton
Exactly.
Jonah Peretti
… where I was suggesting that Gawker was like indie rock, where any time a band gets popular, you don’t listen to it anymore because it’s sold out if it’s popular. And I was making the argument that media companies should be more like hip-hop, where you don’t sell out, you blow up. And being big and becoming a superstar is part of the goal.
And I think that analogizes to media in an interesting way because the way you monetize something that has a small audience that is very loyal lends itself to subscription. Peter was mentioning before: If you had spent less money, grew slower, and had a subscription model, you could build something much more sustainable.
But then there’s the other approach of “make things that are viral, that blow up culture, that have the maximum amount of impact, that reach new people.” And that was always what got me most excited. And that lends itself to business models that are more about advertising and scale and things where you’re monetizing the fact that you’re reaching. You know, BuzzFeed Inc now reaches the majority of millennials and Gen Z in the country every month because we are still taking that approach of making content that people want to share and consume broadly. And focusing on those big uniques as opposed to getting more page views from that same audience who visits again and again and again.
Nick Denton
To be frank, we were, I think, following to some extent the demands of the ad agencies and the media that would follow the ad agencies. The numbers that we were all measured on were monthly uniques. And there was room for three digital media companies in every journalist’s list. You know, when they would say “digital media companies such as Vox Media, BuzzFeed, and X” — who was going to be in that third position? There’s only room for three, and the three were determined by the monthly uniques. And so that’s what we ended up chasing after we all opted to blow up, so to speak — Gawker more spectacularly than most.
Peter Kafka
Does the story of BuzzFeed and Gawker seem like a book to you?
Nick Denton
Look, it was a scene. It was clearly a scene, and it’s probably worth a book as a scene. It was bigger than just BuzzFeed and Gawker. There was a good long five or 10 years there where, you know, there was a creative ferment and journalists would be hired to or from one place. They would go and start out their own ventures, even. We would complain — the owners would complain — about how pay rates were escalating and how this was looking like an increasingly unprofitable business.
But it was an exciting, lively time. And it’s frankly kind of depressing right now.
Ben Smith
You know how whenever you arrive in a scene, everyone who was there before tells you how amazing it was before you got there and how you missed the really golden time? I got there in 2012, which is actually really toward the end of this. I would put the end in 2016 maybe. But wherever you put it, this huge amount of venture money and this escalating spending in some ways marked the end of this experimental, totally kind of un-self-conscious phase of this.
Peter Kafka
Ben, you’re six months into starting your new thing, Semafor. Is any part of the history you’re digging up [for this book] helping you plot out your course? “I can see what they did there. That was wrong. Let’s do this.” And additionally, lots of the mechanical things that a new publication would have used to launch itself up until a couple of years ago don’t really seem to exist anymore or certainly aren’t useful for publishers.
Ben Smith
Are you referring to Facebook?
Peter Kafka
All of it, really.
Ben Smith
Google continues to exist.
Peter Kafka
They are there. But they are definitely stingy on sending referral traffic. Twitter is its own thing. So how is that affecting what you’re trying to do now?
Ben Smith
The thing that I really, really learned from Jonah — but also learned from kind of obsessing about Nick and writing about them — it’s that you have to start in the moment you’re in. There are huge disadvantages to starting from scratch. Bigger, I think, than I’d realized, in terms of people not knowing your brand and things like that. But the huge advantage is just that you start in the moment you’re in, you’re not freighted with people’s kind of organizational expectations of what a newsroom is supposed to be.
The fact that all these tools that people are using aren’t available anymore is a huge asset to a newcomer. The notion that things are different again and that you can just sort of come out and try to reach people where they are in this moment is basically a big competitive asset compared to people who are doing things the way they’ve been doing them. That have sunk a lot of cost in it and are organizationally connected to it.
The biggest single one of those to me is the extent to which — and this isn’t particularly a media thing — but that people have shifted their attention and their connection tends to be with individuals over institutions. So trying to build a newsroom around individual voices, that feels to me like a big competitive advantage right now and also a way to reach readers.
Peter Kafka
That’s a good lemonade-from-lemons answer. But when you guys break a scoop, aren’t you just wishing, “Oh, man, I wish we could blast this out on Facebook, Twitter, or Google” and get all these eyeballs?
Ben Smith
Yeah. What’s so kind of wild is that Max Tani, our great media reporter, said to me the other day that he’s realized, “I’m looking at the Drudge Report just to see what’s going on. Not to see what Drudge is saying, but just because there’s nowhere anywhere, if you just wake up in the morning you can learn what is happening today.”
Twitter doesn’t do that anymore. Twitter is still pretty amazing to see what is happening on Twitter, but it’s not a good place to figure out what’s happening in the world. And so homepages have sort of come back.
So Max wrote a story about that and got a huge link on the Drudge Report and got a lot of traffic. And it did feel like, “Wow, it’s 2007.”
Peter Kafka
Jonah, I’ve asked you about your non-sale to Disney many times and you always demurred and stonewalled me. Ben finally wrote about it in detail. There’s a great scene of you and Peretti and former BuzzFeed COO Jon Steinberg getting high in Hollywood and Steinberg begging you to sell the company for about $500 million. How much do you regret not selling the company back then? That valuation is much more than BuzzFeed is currently worth. And if you had sold it to Disney, what would BuzzFeed be like now?
Jonah Peretti
A lot of the amazing stories in Ben’s book never would have happened had we sold. The freedom we had and the impact on culture we had and the ability to continue to innovate and change and evolve would have been a lot harder inside of a big company.
I think what Nick was saying about the scene is really important. Everything great seems to come out of an interesting scene. So I saw some of the interesting technology stuff coming out of MIT Media Lab, and went to grad school, which was kind of a scene. I think early New York media was a scene. In LA, BuzzFeed video came out of a scene of all these creators making new kinds of video about their own lives and own experiences. I think there’s a great scene right now in generative AI, which is another interesting area.
But those kinds of scenes, it’s harder to stay connected to them inside of giant corporations. We did a lot of work that I’m really proud of as an independent company. And I’m excited about future work that we’re going to be able to do with more autonomy and freedom as an independent company.
Peter Kafka
Ben, what’s your favorite coulda, woulda, shoulda story from your book? The Disney one gets a ton of attention. But there’s also Mark Zuckerberg wanting to buy Jonah or “acqhire” the company.
Ben Smith
Yeah, I don’t …
Peter Kafka
And Jonah flirting with Ozy founder Carlos Watson.
Ben Smith
Wow, what a missed opportunity that was.
Honestly, I think my regrets are about not understanding the business of news — which is a different and worse business, a harder business than entertainment — better earlier.
I mean, Jonah and I were working on it by the time I left, but it wasn’t my strong suit or experience. My personal regrets are about that.
The Disney thing — I did have one of my colleagues read that excerpt and walk up to me just now and was like, “Hey, so if somebody offers to buy our company for $600 million, you should say yes.” But I actually also don’t have any regrets at all.
Peter Kafka
Nick, you have been out of media since 2016. How have your views about media and particularly transparency in journalism — that was something you were really obsessed with for a long time when you were running Gawker Media — how have those changed now?
Nick Denton
The idea — and it wasn’t really my idea, it was something that was kind of around in the internet scene of 2000 or 2005 — the idea was that if we connect everybody and all information is available, that collectively, through the internet we will piece it all together and come to a better mutual understanding of how the world works, how we can affect change. And the jury is still out that that is for sure.
Peter Kafka
That sounds like an Elon Musk view of the world right now. I’m surprised to hear you say the jury is still out, so you still think there’s hope for: “Let everyone say whatever they want — we’ll sort it all out in the mix.” And then, we’ll end up with a better vision of the world than if we rely on X number of gatekeepers or credentialed people, as we call them now.
Nick Denton
It’s pretty much the view of Silicon Valley now. If you look at Marc Andreessen, one of his most recent essays, he talks about the sharpness of the divide as being a feature, not a problem. And that it’s the old establishment, the old managerial class, that is so afraid of these populist voices and so afraid of argument. I don’t know.
Peter Kafka
I expected you to say, “That’s absolutely wrong. I don’t believe that anymore.“
Nick Denton
You didn’t hear me say that.
Peter Kafka
I did not. Ben, you mentioned Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in your book a couple of times.
Ben Smith
Oh, God.
Peter Kafka
They’re minor characters in Hamlet. They got their own play. What does that allusion have to do with Gawker and BuzzFeed? And you?
Ben Smith
It seems like questionably too pretentious to include. And also, I definitely read it in high school. But there’s a passage — and I assume this is true of every scene, of every thing — where you feel like you are shaping the forces of history. And at some point you realize that you’re riding the tide.
I think actually the folks involved here had a very clear sense — not that they’ve created these sort of digital forces, but they were channeling them. But I do think there was an extent to which at least I was under the illusion that I could control them a lot more than I could.
Peter Kafka
Nick, you are the longest-tenured person in this conversation. You kind of kicked a lot of this off. You get the last word. What’s the future of digital media look like?
Nick Denton
TikTok and Substack.
Well, those are the places where I spend more of my time than anywhere else these days. Maybe I’m extrapolating from my personal habits, but people like Matt Yglesias and Noah Smith, Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Greenwald on whatever platform he’s on now — they have thrived since leaving media organizations. They’re making good money. They’re part of a platform that takes a very thin cut of the total revenues. They’re basically living the old blogging dream.
Toronto, on – Blood in the Snow Film Festival (BITS), a unique and imaginative showcase of contemporary Canadian genre films are pleased to announce the popular Festival is back for its 13th exciting year. The highly anticipated Horror Film festival presented by Super Channelruns November 18th– 23rd at Toronto’sIsabel Bader Theatre. The successful, long running festivaltakes on many different faces this year that include Scary, Action Horror, Horror Comedy, Sci-Fi and Thrillers. Festival goers will be kept on the edge of their seats with this year’s powerful line-up.
Blood in the Snow Festival begins with the return of alumni (Wolf Cop) Lowell Dean’s action horror feature Dark Match featuring wrestling veteran Chris Jericho followed by the mysterious Hunting Mathew Nichols. The unexpected thrills continue with Blood in the Snow World Premiere of Pins and Needles and the Fantasia Best First Feature Award winner, Self Driver. The festival ends this year on a fun note with the Toronto Premiere of Scared Sh*tless (featuring Kids in the Hall’s Mark McKinney). Other titles include the horror anthology series Creepy Bits and Zoom call shock of Invited by Blood in the Snow alumni Navin Ramaswaran (Poor Agnes). The festival will also include five feature length short film programs including the festivals comedy horror program Funny Frights and UnusualSights and the highly anticipated Dark Visions program, part of opening night festivities. Blood in the Snow Film Festival Director and Founder, Kelly Michael Stewart anticipates this year’s festival to be its strongest. “This was the first time in our 13 year history, all our programmers agreed on the exact same eight feature programs we have selected.”
Below is this year’s horror fest’s excitinglineup of features and shorts scheduled to screen, in-person at the Isabel Bader theatre.
**All festival features will be preceded by a short film and followed by a Q&A with filmmakers.
Super Channel is pleased to once again assume the role of Presenting Sponsor for the Blood in the Snow Film Festival. We extend our sincere appreciation to the entire BITS team for their unwavering commitment to amplifying the voices of diverse filmmakers and providing a platform for the celebration of Canadian genre content. –Don McDonald, the CEO of Super Channel
Blood in the Snow Festival 2024 Full screening schedule:
Monday November 18th 7pm – Dark Visions
Shiva (13:29) dir. Josh Saltzman
Shiva is an unnerving tale about a recently widowed woman who breaks with a long-held Jewish mourning ritual in hopes of connecting with her deceased husband.
How to Stay Awake (5:30) dir. Vanessa Magic
A woman fights to stay awake, to avoid battling the terrifying realm of sleep paralysis, but as she risks everything to break free, will she be released from the grip of her nocturnal tormentor?
Pocket Princess (9:45)dir. Olivia Loccisano
A young girl must take part in a dangerous task in order to complete her doll collection in this miniature fairytale.
For Rent (10:33) dir. Michèle Kaye
In her new home, Donna unravels a sinister truth—her landlord is a demon with a dark appetite. As her family mysteriously vanishes, Donna confronts the demonic landlord, only to plunge into a shadowy game where the house hungers for more than just occupants. An ominous cycle begins, shrouded in mystery.
Lucy’s Birthday (9:29) dir. Peter Sreckovic
A father struggles to enjoy his young daughter’s birthday despite a series of strange and disturbing disruptions.
Parasitic (10:00) dir. Ryan M Andrews
Last call at a dive bar, a writer struggling to find his voice gets more than he bargains for.
Naualli (6:00) dir. Adrian Gonzalez de la Pena
A grieving man seeks revenge, unwittingly awakening a mystical creature known as the Nagual.
The Saint and The Bear (6:34) dir. Dallas R Soonias
Two strangers cross paths on an ominous park bench.
The Sorrow (13:00) dir. Thomas Affolter
A retired army general and his live-in nurse find they are not alone in a house filled with dark secrets.
Cadabra (6:00) dir. Tiffany Wice
An amateur magician receives more than he anticipated when he purchases a cursed hat from the estate of his deceased hero.
9:30 – Dark Matchdir. Lowell Dean Horror / Action
A small time WRESTLING COMPANY accepts a well-paying but too good to be true gig.
Tuesday November 19th 7pm – Mournful Mediums
Night Lab (15:00) dir. Andrew Ellinas
When a mysterious package arrives from one of the lab’s field research stations, a promising young researcher uncovers a conspiracy against her masterminded by her jealous boss. She soon finds herself having to grapple with her conscience before making a life-or-death decision.
Dirty Bad Wrong (14:40) dir. Erica Orofino
Desperate to keep her promise to host the best superhero party for her 6-year-old, young mother Sid, a sex worker, takes extreme measures and books a last-minute client with a dark fetish.
Midnight at the lonely river (17:00) dir. Abraham Cote
When the lights go out at a seedy little motel bar, at the crossroads of a seedy little town, nefarious happenings are taking place, and three predators are enacting their evil deeds. Enter Vicky, a drifter who quickly realizes what’s happening right under everyone’s nose. After midnight, In the shadows of this dim establishment, evil begets evil, and the predator becomes the prey.
Mean Ends (14:58) dir. Émile Lavoie
A buried body, a missing sister and an inquisitive neighbour makes for a hell of an evening. And the sun isn’t close to settling on Eric’s sh*tty day.
Stuffy (18:26) dir. Dan Nicholls
A young couple sets off in the middle of the night to bury their kid’s stuffed bunny, as one of them is convinced that the stuffy might be cursed.
Dungeon of Death (18:33) dir. Brian P. Rowe
Torturer Raullin loves a work challenge, especially if that challenge involves hurting people to extract information from them.
9:30 – Hunting Matthew Nichols(96 mins) dir. Markian Tarasiuk
Twenty-three years after her brother mysteriously disappeared, a documentary filmmaker sets out to solve his missing person’s case. But when a disturbing piece of evidence is revealed, she comes to believe that her brother might still be alive.
w/ short: Josephine (6:15) dir. John Francis Bregar
A man haunted by his past seeks forgiveness from his deceased wife, but a session with two spirit mediums leads to an unsettling encounter.
Wednesday November 20th 7pm – BITS and BYTES
Ezra (10:57) dirs. Luke Hutchie, Mike Mildon, Marianna Phung
After fleeing the dark and demonic chains of his shadowy old home, Ezra, a killer gay vampire, takes a leap of faith and enters the modern world.
Head Shop (18:14 episode 1-3) dir. Namaï Kham Po
In a post-apocalyptic world, Anna’s life and work are dominated by her father Sylvestre, a short-tempered mechanic with a terrible reputation for tearing the head off anyone who dares cross him. He decides that she’s old enough to follow in his footsteps, much to her dismay. To prove herself, she must now decapitate her first victim. Can she find a way to defy fate?
D dot H (18 :15 episodes 1-2) dirs. Meegwun Fairbrother, Mary Galloway
Struggling artist Doug is visited by the beautiful and enigmatic H, who claims he holds the power to visiting “inconceivable places.” Still half-asleep, Doug is shocked when H vanishes suddenly and her doppelganger, Hannah, strides past.
Creepy Bits: “Last Sonata” (21:08) dir.
Adrian Bobb, Ashlea Wessel, David J. Fernandes, Sid Zanforlin and Kelly Paoli.
Set among forests, lakes, and small towns, Creepy Bits is a horror anthology series helmed by five innovative filmmakers exploring themes of human vs. nature, the invasion and destruction of the natural world by outsiders, and isolation within a vast, eerie landscape that is not afraid to fight back.
Tales from the Void: “Whistle in the Woods” (24:36) dir. Francesco Loschiavo
Horror anthology TV series based on stories from r/NoSleep. Each tale blends genre thrills & social commentary exploring the dark side of the human psyche.
9:30 – Self Driverdir. Michael Pierro Thriller
Facing mounting expenses and the unrelenting pressure of modern living, a down-on-his-luck cab driver is lured on to a mysterious new app that promises fast, easy money. As his first night on the job unfolds, he is pulled ever deeper into the dark underbelly of society, embarking on a journey that will test his moral code and shake his understanding of what it means to have freewill. The question becomes not how much money he can make, but what he’ll be compelled to do to make it.
A couple on a cottage getaway tries to work on their relationship but ends up getting more than they bargained for when they discover something sinister lurking beneath the surface.
Thursday November 21st 7pm – Funny Frights
Midnight Snack (1:41) dir. Sandra Foisy
Hunger always strikes in the dead of night.
Hell is a Teenage Girl (15:00) dir. Stephen Sawchuk
Every Halloween, the small town of Springboro is terrorized by its resident SLASHER – a masked serial killer who targets sinful teenagers that break ‘The Rules of Horror’ – don’t drink, don’t do drugs, and don’t have sex!
Gaslit (10:36) dir. Anna MacLean
A woman goes to dangerous lengths to prove she wasn’t responsible for a fart.
Bath Bomb (9:55) dir. Colin G Cooper
A possessive doctor prepares an ostensibly romantic bath for his narcissistic boyfriend, but after an accusation of infidelity, things take a deeply disturbing turn.
Any Last Words (14:22) dir. Isaac Rathé
A crook trying to flee town is paid an untimely visit by some of his former colleagues. What would you say to save your life if you were staring down the barrel of a gun?
Papier mâché (4:30) dir. Simon Madore
A whimsical depiction of the hard and tumultuous life of a piñata.
The Living Room (9:59) dir. Joslyn Rogers
After an unexpected call from Lady Luck, Ms. Valentine must choose between her sanity and her winnings – all before the jungle consumes her.
A Divine Comedy: What the Hell (8:55) dir. Valerie Lee Barnhart Dante’s classic Hell is falling into oblivion. Charlotte,
sharp-witted Harpy, navigates the chaos and sets out despite the odds for a new life and destiny.
Mr Fuzz (2:30) dir. Christopher Walsh
A long-limbed, fuzzy-haired creature will do whatever it takes to keep you watching his show.
Out of the Hands of the Wicked (5:00)dirs. Luke Sargent, Benjamin Hackman
After a harrowing journey home from hell, old Pa boasts of his triumph over evil, and how he came to lock the devil in his heart.
The Shitty Ride (9:13) dir. Cole Doran
Hoping to impress the girl of his dreams, Cole buys a used car but gets more than he bargained for with his shitty ride.
9:30 – Inviteddir. Navin Ramaswaran Horror
When a reluctant mother attends her daughter’s Zoom elopement, she and the rest of the family in attendance quickly realize the groom is part of a Russian cult with deadly intentions.
w/ shorts: Defile dir. Brian Sepanzyk
A couple’s secluded getaway is suddenly interrupted by a strange family who exposes them to the horrors that lie beyond the tree line.
+ A Mother’s Love dir. Lisa Ovies
A young girl deals with the consequences of trusting someone online.
Friday November 22nd 7:00 pm – Creepy Bits(anthology horror series)
Creepy Bits is a short horror anthology series that explores pandemic age themes of isolation, paranoia and distrust of authority, serving them up in bite-sized chunks. Directed by Adrian Bobb, Ashlea Wessel, David J. Fernandes, Sid Zanforlin and Kelly Paoli.
9:30 – Pins and Needles (81 min) dir. James Villeneuve Horror / Thriller
Follows Max, a diabetic, biology grad student who is entrapped in a devilish new-age wellness experiment and must escape a lethal game of cat and mouse to avoid becoming the next test subject to extend the lives of the rich and privileged.
w/ short: Adjoining (11:42) dirs. Harrison Houde, Dakota Daulby
A couple’s motel stay takes a chilling turn when they discover they’re being observed, leading to unexpected consequences.
Saturday November 23rd 4pm – EmergingScreams (94 mins)
Apnea (14:58) dir. David Matheson
A single, working mother finds her career and her offbeat son’s safety in jeopardy when she discovers that her late mother is possessing her in her sleep.
Nereid (7:48) dir. Lori Zozzolotto
A mysterious woman escapes from an abusive relationship with earth shattering results.
BedLamer (15:00) dir. Alexa Jane Jerrett
On the shores of a small fishing village lives a lonely settlement of men – capturing and domesticating otherworldly creatures that were never meant to be tamed.
Blocked (6:30) dir. Aisha Alfa
A new mom is literally consumed with the futility of cleaning up after her kid.
Dance of the Faery (10:23) dir. Kaela Brianna Egert
A young woman cleans up her estranged, great aunt’s home after her death. Upon inspection, she soon realizes that her eccentric obsession with fairies was not born out of love, but of fear.
Deep End (7:36) dir. Juan Pablo Saenz
A gay couple’s heated argument during a hike spiral into a nightmare when one of them vanishes, leading the other to a mysterious cave that could reveal the chilling truth.
Ojichaag – Spirit Within (11:21) dir. Rachel Beaulieu
An emotionally devastated woman seeks comfort in her choice to end her life. As she faces death in the form of a spirit, she must decide to let herself go to fight to stay alive.
Lure (9.56) dir. Jacob Phair
A tormented father awaits the return of the man who saved his son’s life.
Let Me In (10:00) dirs. Joel Buxton, Charles Smith
A reluctant man interviews an unusual immigration candidate: himself from a doomed dimension
7:00 pm –The Silent Planet (95 mins) dir. Jeffrey St. Jules Sci-fi
An aging convict serving out a life sentence alone on a distant planet is forced to confront his past when a new prisoner shows up and pushes him to remember his life on earth
w/ short: Ascension (3:57) dir. Kenzie Yango
Deep in a remote forest, two friends, Mia and Riley, embark on a leisurely hike. As tensions run high between the two, a strange humming noise appears that seems to be coming from somewhere in the woods.
A plumber and his germophobic son are forced to get their hands dirty to save the residents of an apartment building, when a genetically engineered, blood-thirsty creature escapes into the plumbing system.
w/ short: Oh…Canada (6:20) dir. Vincenzo Nappi
Oh, Canada. Such a wonderful place to live – WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. A musical look into the artifice surrounding Canadian identity.
Sometimes, you just have to return to the classics.
That’s especially true as Halloween approaches. While you queue up your spooky movie marathon, here are 10 iconic horror movies from the past 70 years for inspiration, and what AP writers had to say about them when they were first released.
We resurrected excerpts from these reviews, edited for clarity, from the dead — did they stand the test of time?
“Rear Window” (1954)
“Rear Window” is a wonderful trick pulled off by Alfred Hitchcock. He breaks his hero’s leg, sets him up at an apartment window where he can observe, among other things, a murder across the court. The panorama of other people’s lives is laid out before you, as seen through the eyes of a Peeping Tom.
James Stewart, Grace Kelly, Thelma Ritter and others make it good fun.
— Bob Thomas
“Halloween” (1978)
At 19, Jamie Lee Curtis is starring in a creepy little thriller film called “Halloween.”
Until now, Jamie’s main achievement has been as a regular on the “Operation Petticoat” TV series. Jamie is much prouder of “Halloween,” though it is obviously an exploitation picture aimed at the thrill market.
The idea for “Halloween” sprang from independent producer-distributor Irwin Yablans, who wanted a terror-tale involving a babysitter. John Carpenter and Debra Hill fashioned a script about a madman who kills his sister, escapes from an asylum and returns to his hometown intending to murder his sister’s friends.
— Bob Thomas
“The Silence of the Lambs” (1991)
“The Silence of the Lambs” moves from one nail-biting sequence to another. Jonathan Demme spares the audience nothing, including closeups of skinned corpses. The squeamish had best stay home and watch “The Cosby Show.”
Ted Tally adapted the Thomas Harris novel with great skill, and Demme twists the suspense almost to the breaking point. The climactic confrontation between Clarice Starling and Buffalo Bill (Ted Levine) is carried a tad too far, though it is undeniably exciting with well-edited sequences.
Such a tale as “The Silence of the Lambs” requires accomplished actors to pull it off. Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins are highly qualified. She provides steely intelligence, with enough vulnerability to sustain the suspense. He delivers a classic portrayal of pure, brilliant evil.
— Bob Thomas
“Scream” (1996)
In this smart, witty homage to the genre, students at a suburban California high school are being killed in the same gruesome fashion as the victims in the slasher films they know by heart.
If it sounds like the script of every other horror movie to come and go at the local movie theater, it’s not.
By turns terrifying and funny, “Scream” — written by newcomer David Williamson — is as taut as a thriller, intelligent without being self-congratulatory, and generous in its references to Wes Craven’s competitors in gore.
— Ned Kilkelly
“The Blair Witch Project” (1999)
Imaginative, intense and stunning are a few words that come to mind with “The Blair Witch Project.”
“Blair Witch” is the supposed footage found after three student filmmakers disappear in the woods of western Maryland while shooting a documentary about a legendary witch.
The filmmakers want us to believe the footage is real, the story is real, that three young people died and we are witnessing the final days of their lives. It isn’t. It’s all fiction.
But Eduardo Sanchez and Dan Myrick, who co-wrote and co-directed the film, take us to the edge of belief, squirming in our seats the whole way. It’s an ambitious and well-executed concept.
— Christy Lemire
“Saw” (2004)
The fright flick “Saw” is consistent, if nothing else.
This serial-killer tale is inanely plotted, badly written, poorly acted, coarsely directed, hideously photographed and clumsily edited, all these ingredients leading to a yawner of a surprise ending. To top it off, the music’s bad, too.
You could forgive all (well, not all, or even, fractionally, much) of the movie’s flaws if there were any chills or scares to this sordid little horror affair.
But “Saw” director James Wan and screenwriter Leigh Whannell, who developed the story together, have come up with nothing more than an exercise in unpleasantry and ugliness.
— David Germain
Germain gave “Saw” one star out of four.
“Paranormal Activity” (2009)
The no-budget ghost story “Paranormal Activity” arrives 10 years after “The Blair Witch Project,” and the two horror movies share more than a clever construct and shaky, handheld camerawork.
The entire film takes place at the couple’s cookie-cutter dwelling, its layout and furnishings indistinguishable from just about any other readymade home constructed in the past 20 years. Its ordinariness makes the eerie, nocturnal activities all the more terrifying, as does the anonymity of the actors adequately playing the leads.
The thinness of the premise is laid bare toward the end, but not enough to erase the horror of those silent, nighttime images seen through Micah’s bedroom camera. “Paranormal Activity” owns a raw, primal potency, proving again that, to the mind, suggestion has as much power as a sledgehammer to the skull.
— Glenn Whipp
Whipp gave “Paranormal Activity” three stars out of four.
“The Conjuring” (2013)
As sympathetic, methodical ghostbusters Lorraine and Ed Warren, Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson make the old-fashioned haunted-house horror film “The Conjuring” something more than your average fright fest.
“The Conjuring,” which boasts incredulously of being their most fearsome, previously unknown case, is built very in the ’70s-style mold of “Amityville” and, if one is kind, “The Exorcist.” The film opens with a majestic, foreboding title card that announces its aspirations to such a lineage.
But as effectively crafted as “The Conjuring” is, it’s lacking the raw, haunting power of the models it falls shy of. “The Exorcist” is a high standard, though; “The Conjuring” is an unusually sturdy piece of haunted-house genre filmmaking.
— Jake Coyle
Coyle gave “The Conjuring” two and half stars out of four.
Fifty years after Sidney Poitier upended the latent racial prejudices of his white date’s liberal family in “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” writer-director Jordan Peele has crafted a similar confrontation with altogether more combustible results in “Get Out.”
In Peele’s directorial debut, the former “Key and Peele” star has — as he often did on that satirical sketch series — turned inside out even supposedly progressive assumptions about race. But Peele has largely left comedy behind in a more chilling portrait of the racism that lurks beneath smiling white faces and defensive, paper-thin protestations like, “But I voted for Obama!” and “Isn’t Tiger Woods amazing?”
It’s long been a lamentable joke that in horror films — never the most inclusive of genres — the Black dude is always the first to go. In this way, “Get Out” is radical and refreshing in its perspective.
In Ari Aster’s intensely nightmarish feature-film debut “Hereditary,” when Annie (Toni Collette), an artist and mother of two teenagers, sneaks out to a grief-support group following the death of her mother, she lies to her husband Steve (Gabriel Byrne) that she’s “going to the movies.”
A night out with “Hereditary” is many things, but you won’t confuse it for an evening of healing and therapy. It’s more like the opposite.
Aster’s film, relentlessly unsettling and pitilessly gripping, has carried with it an ominous air of danger and dread: a movie so horrifying and good that you have to see it, even if you shouldn’t want to, even if you might never sleep peacefully again.
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24626024/peretti_and_smith_code_2015.jpg)
