Blog
About
Indices
Films by Title Gateway Cinephile Posts by Date The Take-Up and Other Posts by Date Horror Cinema David Lynch's Shorts John Ford's Silents H. P. Lovecraft Adaptations Twin Peaks: The Return Westworld Freeze Frame Archive
What I Read

Gateway Cinephile

Appreciation and Criticism of Cinema Through Heartland Eyes
Blog
About
Indices
Films by Title Gateway Cinephile Posts by Date The Take-Up and Other Posts by Date Horror Cinema David Lynch's Shorts John Ford's Silents H. P. Lovecraft Adaptations Twin Peaks: The Return Westworld Freeze Frame Archive
What I Read
The Shallows

The Shallows

Woman vs. Wild: The Shallows

[Note: This post contains minor spoilers.]

Efficient, effective thrillers like The Shallows don’t come along that often. A lean, mean, 104-minute dose of primeval tension and terror, the film is blessedly light on—although not completely free of—narrative flab. The opening fifteen minutes or so establish all that the viewer needs to know about heroine Nancy (Blake Lively), a Texas surfer and Baylor grad who has journeyed to Mexico for reasons that are both adventurous and sentimental. Wavering on whether or not to drop out of medical school, she is seeking a nameless cove where her recently deceased mother rode the waves many years ago, shortly after discovering she was pregnant. In true Ugly American fashion, she is embarrassingly open about this personal odyssey with Carlos (Óscar Jaenada), the amiable local driver who has agreed to convey her through the forest to this elusive beach.

Once they arrive at the cove, Spanish director Jaume Collet-Serra allows the film to break free from the almost claustrophobic close-ups that dominate within cab of Carlos’ truck. The sumptuous, blindingly bright widescreen digital photography captures the beach in all its white and aquamarine glory, resembling nothing so much as pristine paradise found. (Except, of course, for the two male surfers who are already enjoying the waves and documenting their exploits with a helmet-mounted GoPro camera.) While The Shallows is not remotely a “surfing procedural,” Collet-Serra provides an inspired depiction of Nancy’s meticulous preparations in a series of quick cuts, giving landlocked viewers just enough detail to appreciate that she is no-nonsense and capable when it comes to her sport. Thereafter, the film indulges in a montage of luscious surfing footage, devoting as much attention to the hypnotic curl of the waves as it does to Lively’s lithe, leggy figure. While a tad shameless, this slick revelry in the light, color, and motion of the surfer’s experience handily conveys Nancy’s exhilaration, providing validation for her quest—and contrast with the horrors to come.

After taking a break to video chat with her father (Brett Cullen) and younger sister (Sedona Legge) to confirm that she is alive and well—and quarreling with Dad vis-à-vis her mother’s death and her own future—Nancy returns to the surf. The film’s tone unmistakably shifts at this point, leaving behind the sun-kissed elation of the earlier footage for something more ambiguous. The score switches into a distinctly ominous mode, and Collet-Serra slides in more gloomy underwater shots angled up towards the surface, where the silhouette of Nancy’s surfboard suddenly seems terribly small and exposed. As the day wears on and her two ad hoc companions are preparing to leave, Nancy elects to remain behind and catch a few more waves. While this fateful choice will seem foolhardy in hindsight, the nightmare that ultimately descends on Nancy is less attributable to poor judgment than to freak occurrences beyond her control. Most critically, the currents have recently carried a rotting humpback whale carcass into the cove, drawing predatory species that would not normally be encountered in the area.

What unfolds next is an ocean-phobe’s worst fear: An enormous great white shark rams Nancy’s surfboard and delivers a gruesome bite to her left leg. The attack, although brief, is easily the most visually arresting sequence in the film, owing particularly to two stupendous images. The first is a dazzling slow-motion shot of Nancy sliding into the tube of a breaking wave, just as the colossal shadow of the shark materializes within the wall of water to her right. In the second instance, underwater greens and blues erupt with dark blooms of blood as the maimed Nancy flails in terror, the entire frame eventually glowing an unnaturally deep red that would do Dario Argento proud. Despite her panic and pain, Nancy manages to claw her way onto the whale cadaver, giving her just enough of a respite from danger to turn her surf leash into a makeshift tourniquet, and then to comprehend the ugly reality of her situation.

This is where The Shallows truly begins to shine as a horror-tinted thriller: Nancy is effectively thrown into a fearsome, single-minded arms race not only with the hellishly determined shark, but with the implacable forces of the sun, cold, current, and tides. Similar to other top-shelf thrillers of recent vintage such as Buried, Gravity, and The Revenant, Collet-Serra’s film succeeds in large part due to the stark nature of its conflict. Nancy only has one goal: survive. Naturally, the conventions of mainstream narrative cinema stack the deck in favor of the film’s heroine. As a pretty white woman (and a Final Girl of sorts), Nancy is clearly going to live through her ordeal. However, the film is nonetheless able to evoke punishing tension from the moment-to-moment uncertainty of how exactly she will outmaneuver each new complication and mini-catastrophe. Her tactics rely on both her knowledge and pure happenstance to exploit every possible advantage within the confines of her desperate situation. Case in point: Her surgical training permits her to jerry-rig her barbed earrings into sutures for her mutilated leg, in a scene reminiscent of Hugh Glass’ cauterization of his torn throat in The Revenant.

Ordinarily, an oceanic survival tale would entail perils related to sea’s trackless expanse and abyssal depths. The brutal irony of The Shallows’ scenario is how constrained the physical location proves to be. Nancy’s entire world is suddenly defined by a triad of objects, all within 40 or so yards of each other: the whale carcass, a stationary buoy, and a nub of rock with barely enough space for her and an obdurate seagull. Moreover, she is trapped a scant 200 yards from shore, seemingly doomed to perish within sight of the beach she traveled so far to surf. Like an army in a castle under siege, her sanctuary from her enemy is also her prison. (In this, The Shallows resembles the third act of Jaws, although in Nancy’s case she never has any illusions that she is the hunter.) Collet-Serra employs the simplicity of his tale’s locale to fine effect, repeatedly emphasizing that Nancy’s fate hinges on cold, quantitative factors such as distance, duration, and velocity. She doesn’t have the luxury of time to wait out her prehistoric foe. Thirst, gangrene, and the tide demand that she act to save herself sooner rather than later. Underlining the point, the luminescent face of Nancy’s marine watch periodically appears on screen, marking not only the time, but also the minutes remaining until low and high tide.

This is just one of the digital bells and whistles with which the director embellishes his frame. Texts and videos on Nancy’s phone also announce themselves with on-screen pop-ups. While such animated flourishes are at times distracting, their purpose gradually becomes clear as the film unfolds.  Ruthless momentum is crucial to the film’s potency, and while the action might occasionally downshift, Collet-Serra maintains a sense of ceaseless motion, reflecting the shark’s endless circling. (Seen from above, the creature’s silhouette becomes a second hand on a doomsday clock, counting out the remaining ticks of Nancy’s life.) Adding text messages and tidal countdowns as overlays prevents the need to cut awkwardly to close-up shots of gadgets, which would diminish the film’s energy. Not all of Collet-Serra’s choices are as judicious. The dollop of magical realism he adds to the film’s penultimate scene is likely meant to be touching, but it just induces eye-rolling. More egregiously, the film tends to treat its Mexican characters as featureless prey, or even outright stereotypes in the case of a thieving drunk (Diego Espejel) who declines to help Nancy and is relieved of a portion of his anatomy for his sins.

That said, The Shallows is essentially a one-woman show, and former Gossip Girl lead Lively acquits herself well. To be sure, Nancy is as thinly characterized as any horror protagonist, and the role doesn’t demand much of the performer in terms of emotional range or complexity. Certainly, Lively pulls off the tousled, sand-speckled bearing of a beach native, and also looks suitably alluring in a bikini—which is always going to be a prerequisite for a young female lead in a shark movie, one suspects. Indeed, The Shallows is fairly uninhibited about its male gaze, although the film’s gawking at Lively’s body often feels more aesthetic than sexual. However, it’s not the actress’ looks that are most salient to The Shallows’ success, but her ease with the role’s physicality and with its broad emotional beats. Far from distracting with her It Girl celebrity, Lively is credible as both an avid surfer and the sort of furtively tough woman who is accustomed to telling obsequious men that she’s just fine without their company, thank you. In short, Lively is convincing in a manner that permits her stardom to recede. The actress turns a paper doll heroine into someone likable and human: a confident athlete, a grieving daughter, and a terrified Everyperson in an hostile environment. Acting 101, perhaps, but it’s no small thing to be believable while also getting out of the way of the behind-the-camera talent—director Collet-Serra, of course, but also cinematographer Flavio Martinez Labiano and editor Joel Negron. Lively’s ability to nail exactly what The Shallows requires, no more and no less, is admirable.

PostedJuly 6, 2016
AuthorAndrew Wyatt
CategoriesDiary
The Conjuring 2

The Conjuring 2

Reach Hither Thy Hand, and Believe: The Conjuring 2

[Note: This post contains mild spoilers for The Conjuring and The Conjuring 2.]

The critical admiration bestowed upon director James Wan’s 2013 haunted house feature The Conjuring remains a puzzling phenomenon. The film is a shameless and utterly obnoxious helping of religious apologism, albeit one that is weirdly muddled in its advocacy for faith over skepticism. While one’s tolerance for such god-bothering hoopla might depend on one’s personal beliefs, The Conjuring’s gravest sin is more fundamental than its questionable worldview: It’s just not that scary. Nothing defeats a horror feature quite like a dearth of fright, and Wan’s film consistently confuses hackneyed spook story design and dismally predictable jump scares for authentic terror. What’s more, there is little connective tissue running through the feature’s myriad scenes of phantasmal shenanigans. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given its alleged inspiration in the case files of demonologists-slash-hucksters Ed and Lorraine Warren, The Conjuring unfolds less like a coherent story and more like a collection of fusty ghost-hunting anecdotes and stock urban legends.

The Insidious series has established Wan as a horror filmmaker who is capable of employing creaky genre tropes in gratifying and slightly off-kilter ways. Accordingly, one is disposed to lay some of the blame for The Conjuring’s narrative failures on twin screenwriters Carey and Chad Hayes (House of Wax, The Reaping) and producer Tony DeRosa-Grund, who shepherded the feature out of development hell in spite of zero experience with horror cinema. Regardless, the film’s missteps are partly rooted in its preference for the viewpoint of the ghost-sniffing Warrens rather than that of the Perrons, the terrorized family whose New England farmhouse has unfortunately become the lair of a vengeful witch’s spirit. As portrayed with unusual paltriness by Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson, Lorraine and Ed Warren are world-weary but steadfast in their religious convictions. With only small perturbations, their responses to every fresh swerve of spectral viciousness amount to moist-eyed resolve and tighter crucifix-clutching. Given that the viewer is more naturally aligned with the Perrons and their bewildered terror, the stiff-lipped, theologically ambiguous Warrens make lousy audience surrogates.

Accordingly, it was not particularly heartening to learn that Farmiga, Wilson, Wan, and the Hayeses had re-teamed for another ghost story purportedly culled from the Warrens’ real-world experiences. That said, The Conjuring 2 takes an approach to the sequel form that is relatively novel in the present era of horror franchises defined by elaborate world-building and breathlessly convoluted mythologies. (Ironically, that era was ushered in by Wan’s own Saw series, and further solidified by Insidious.) The Conjuring 2—which, like is antecedent, includes no actual conjuring—is only a sequel in the sense that its events occur after those of first film, and that it is similarly inspired by one of the Warrens’ purported paranormal investigations. The new film has nothing to do with the Perron haunting, and in this respect the Conjuring films more closely resemble standalone stories with the same protagonists rather than interconnected chapters in a multi-film saga. There’s something appealingly tidy and straightforward about this attitude, which lends each film the digestible simplicity of a Hardy Boys novel or an episode of a classic television series.

Like its predecessor, The Conjuring 2 opens with a prelude that appears to have minimal connection to the film’s primary plot. It is 1976 and the Warrens are in the middle of their most renowned case, the notorious haunting that supposedly afflicted the Amityville, Long Island home of the Lutz family. (This was later revealed to be a massive hoax, of course, but that hasn’t prevented the tale from inspiring at least one or two effective horror features.) During a séance, Lorraine relives the mass murder of the house’s previous inhabitants through the appallingly detached perspective of the crime’s perpetrator. It’s a disturbing sequence in which she mentally stalks through the darkened halls, methodically pumping an unseen shotgun as she “murders” each slumbering family member in their bed. What truly rattles Lorraine, however, is not the firsthand experience of this gruesome deed, but an encounter with a terrifying white-faced demon in a nun’s habit. This entity shows her a disturbing vision of Ed’s death, snapping Lorraine out of her trance with a jolt. In contrast to the first film, the initial impression that this prelude is unrelated to the subsequent story is slowly and steadily eroded. Eventually it becomes alarmingly apparent that the same foul forces are at play both in Amityville and in Enfield, north London one year later.

The latter is the home borough of the Hodgson family, headed by frazzled single mom Peggy (Frances O’Connor). She is struggling to keep four kids—from oldest to youngest, Margaret (Lauren Esposito), Janet (Madison Wolfe), Johnny (Patrick McAuley), and Billy (Benjamin Haigh)—fed and clothed in a moldering council row house while Dad is shacked up with his new family down the street. True to the haunted house movie formula, the paranormal disturbances that trouble the Hodgson clan start out relatively small in scale, albeit with an unambiguous aura of menace: nocturnal thudding, disembodied voices, and objects moving or activating on their own accord. Janet begins talking and roaming about in her sleep, often waking in a daze in the downstairs parlor. Her mounting anxiety seems to be centered on a decrepit leather rocking chair, where Peggy finds her sitting on more than one occasion.

Consistent with its predecessor, The Conjuring 2 is cursed with a shapeless plot that consists largely of a seemingly arbitrary assortment of ghostly shocks delivered with no particular sense of rhythm or direction. At times, the entity that bedevils the Hodgsons is remarkably restrained, playing mind games with the children in a manner that suggests psychological sadism as its ultimate objective. In other instances, its tactics amount to little more than crude spectral bullying aimed at driving the family away, as when the spirit abruptly appears as a gaunt, crooked-toothed old man who bellows threats at Janet, only to vanish just as suddenly.

Janet in particular has attracted the malevolent attention of the ghost, which is eventually revealed to be the lingering spirit of the house’s erstwhile misanthropic resident, Bill (Bob Adrian). The revelation that Janet’s poor soul may be in peril clarifies the story’s stakes, but doesn’t do much to correct the aimless character of the narrative. Even when the plot appears to move forward, nothing much changes. The local constabulary looks into the disturbances and is perplexed by the strange sounds and moving furniture, but can’t actually do anything about them. The physically and emotionally battered family moves across the street to escape the tormenting wraith, but the ghost finds ways to terrorize them anyway. The British media picks up on the story and the Hodgsons become the subjects of a sensational national news circus, but the arrival of parapsychologists and skeptical scientists doesn’t abate or intensify the spectral activity in any meaningful way. One gets the distinct sense that Wan is just killing time until the Warrens enter the picture.

The filmmakers never quite resolve what sort of horror picture they are making—a haunted house story, a demon possession story, or some kludgy hybrid of the two—and too often flit indiscriminately between subtle and vulgar scares. That said, many of the film’s paranormal scenes are terrifically chilling when regarded on their own merits, and in this the sequel is a clear improvement over the inert and uninspired The Conjuring. The fantastic sound design, credited to Eliot Connors, Joe Dzuban, and Peter Staubli, is a significant contributor to the film’s success on this score: The jarring thuds, squeals, and shrieks that reverberate through the sequences of ghostly havoc are downright blood-curdling, and pitilessly bombastic in manner that never devolves into wearying sensory overload.

The soundscape underlines the at times violent tone of the film’s poltergeist activity, which leans PG-13 while still providing an aura of lethal ferocity as furniture and humans are tossed about with terrifying supernatural force. Just as effective, however, are the moments of sustained, agonizing quiet, often involving a character (and by extension the viewer) staring with trepidation into a sea of threatening shadow. While the film evinces an affection for garish visual effects in some scenes, Wan and cinematographer Don Burgess also know how to employ the simple raw materials of extreme low light and negative space in expert fashion. Many of the film’s most superlative shots teeter brilliantly on the boundary between digital-assisted illusion and a mundane trick of the eye, as the viewer strains to determine whether they do in fact detect a menacing shape lurking in the darkness. Indeed, with respect to its methods, The Conjuring 2 often recalls no less a horror classic than The Haunting, with its wallpaper shadow play and hellishly jarring sound design—a worthy influence if there ever was one.

At times, The Conjuring 2’s haphazard tendencies even manage to pay crazed dividends in the moment. A stock scenario involving a dog barking at something unseen in the backyard suddenly morphs into a jaw-dropping scene of Burton- and del Toro-flavored fantasy body horror when Billy’s personal bogeyman the Crooked Man (Javier Botet) lurches forth on spidery, stop-motion limbs. It makes almost no sense in the context of the rest of the film, but damn if it isn’t pants-shitting scary in a way that recalls a childhood nightmare. And then there is the demon nun (Bonnie Aarons), an entity that skulks around the periphery of the story, casually terrorizing Lorraine while the screenplay works up the nerve to pull the Warrens into the Hodgsons’ tribulations. When scrutinized in the full light of day, the creature resembles Marilyn Manson in a sophomorically blasphemous Halloween costume, but Wan mostly keeps the figure swathed in shadow, accentuating its menace. The demon only has two modes—statue-like impassivity and shrieking madness—and it veers between them with an aggressiveness that keeps Lorraine and the viewer off balance. It’s sort of hokey, but also dreadfully effective at creating a sense of lurking, unholy danger.

Once the Warrens do arrive at Enfield to investigate, the film becomes slightly more focused and compelling, notwithstanding the blandness of the ghost hunters themselves and the ongoing directionless quality of the undead disturbances. As in the first film, Lorraine and Ed’s sober marital love and religious piety serve as bulwarks for the embattled family. The scenes of paranormal sleuthing are interspersed with those highlighting the cozy, calming domesticity that the Warrens’ presence bestows on the household. This pattern provides a welcome break from the ghost’s pitiless assaults and the weak-tea family drama of the Hodgsons in isolation, but it’s more obligatory than heartfelt. Farmiga and Wilson’s engagement with this sort of rote, forced humanism is conspicuously thin, but the Warrens are so one-note and underwritten as characters, it’s perhaps unfair to lay the blame on the performers. Scenes of Ed selflessly taking on the surrogate father role—performing plumbing repairs and strumming out an Elvis tune on an acoustic guitar to the delight of the kids—are particularly eye-rolling in their formulaic silliness.

Fortunately, the Warrens’ appearance at the Hodgson home also sets the stage for several gratifying horror sequences that showcase Wan's impressive directorial skills. These include: a claustrophobic thriller scene in a flooded basement that employs blocking and lighting to cunning effect; a mostly off-screen frenzy of poltergeist violence that demolishes a kitchen and culminates in a grotesque, shocking discovery; and, most prominently, a nerve-wracking interrogation of a ghost-possessed Janet that utilizes shallow focus to ingeniously skirt a scientific implausibility. The highlight of the film, however, is indisputably a climactic reveal that provides Lorraine with the means to save Janet and drive the malevolent force out of the Hodgsons' house once and for all. On the one hand, it’s a vaguely cheap twist that the viewer has little prayer of puzzling out on their own. On the other, it’s a revelation that is rather brilliantly signaled throughout the film, in a manner that elegantly skirts the line between a subliminal message and an Argento-style clue whose significance is apparent only much later. It’s at once ridiculous and utterly satisfying, prompting the viewer to mentally return to prior shots with a gasp, and all without the need for an in-film flashback to crudely hammer the point home.

Even if one were to set aside its structural and pacing problems, the film still suffers from many of the genre’ reliably exasperating flaws. It wouldn’t be a modern horror feature without foolish character decisions, questionable fudging of time and space, and a senselessly drawn-out climax. Moment-for-moment, however, The Conjuring 2 is decisively more capable and fascinating than its forebear, if only because it actually succeeds in spots as a work of creepy entertainment.

It’s a pity, then, that the film is larded with the same faith-based hogwash that made its antecedent such an irksome slog. If anything, the film’s ethos is pitched even more severely towards a smug loathing of skeptics and academics, who are unfailingly presented as tweedy twerps and dismissive sourpusses. It’s challenging to make a work of dunderheaded theistic agitprop like The Exorcism of Emily Rose look fair-minded and nuanced in comparison, but The Conjuring 2 somehow manages it. Even the blatant pandering of an overtly fundamentalist Christian feature might be preferable to the self-satisfied greeting card aphorisms that dot the Hayeses’ screenplay. The result is not so much a religious film as a snotty, flimsy jeremiad against any rationalist critique of supernatural claims.

The Warrens are understood to be Catholic—“the Church” receives copious sidelong name-checks—but the film is only interested in utilizing that faith’s sacred trappings for cut-rate funhouse gimmicky, such as crucifixes that turn themselves upside-down. Actual immersion in and engagement with the Catholic worldview would necessitate a thoughtfulness that The Conjuring 2 is incapable of sustaining. This, ultimately, is what is so unpleasant and insulting about the film’s disdain for rationality: It cloaks itself in Christianity but has no use for the faith’s potential as a storytelling substrate. The contrast with a film like The Exorcist—a profoundly, almost painfully Catholic film—could not be starker. William Friedkin’s 1973 feature plunges so deeply and expressively into Catholicism’s spiritual traditions of guilt, frailty, and redemption that even atheistic viewers such as this writer are unfailingly overwhelmed by its potency. What The Conjuring 2 traffics in, on the other hand, is the pop cultural equivalent of ceremonial piety: a pose calculated to provide a gloss of complacent superiority, sans any theological substance.

PostedJune 21, 2016
AuthorAndrew Wyatt
CategoriesDiary
The Darkness

The Darkness

Things Could Be a Whole Lot Better: The Darkness

[Note: This post contains spoilers.]

Bad movies can be fun. One needn’t look further than the enduring cult popularity of 1990s film-riffing phenomenon Mystery Science Theater 3000, or the proliferation of midnight screenings featuring cinematic cheese from the classic (Plan 9 from Outer Space) to the contemporary (The Room). However, for a film to cross the threshold from not-good to amusingly terrible demands an element of artistic catastrophe. It isn’t sufficient for a feature to be merely shoddy: It must be tragic in its mesmerizing awfulness. The difference is akin to that between a stalled clunker sitting in the driveway and a spectacular twenty-car pile up in the middle of a six-lane expressway.

The Darkness is, regrettably, the former sort of film: bad, but not transcendentally bad. It is a work so relentlessly banal in its failures that one can’t work up the enthusiasm to despise it. Its worst sin is nicking 92 minutes of the viewer’s life, draining them away like some dreary cinematic vampire. Australian writer-director Greg McLean is perhaps best known for helming the vicious serial killer feature Wolf Creek, a film whose transgressive ugliness has made it something of a divisive cult landmark in the annals of 21st-century horror. Its moral worth (or lack thereof) aside, Wolf Creek is unquestionably a frightening film, one in which tension is sharpened through ruthlessly offhanded eruptions of violence. The Darkness, meanwhile, is like the dismal mirror image of McLean’s earlier film: a torpid blob of anti-drama that flails about without any notion of what the hell it is trying to accomplish or why.

The premise of the film is one of the more threadbare horror scenarios: A malevolent otherworldly entity invades the suburban domicile of a nuclear family and proceeds to wreak supernatural havoc. The clan in question here is the Taylors: architect dad Peter (Kevin Bacon); homemaker mom Bronny (Radha Mitchell); older teen daughter Stephanie (Lucy Gry); and tween autistic son Mikey (David Mazouz). During a family vacation to the Southwestern U.S.—Los Angeles fills in unconvincingly for the Four Corners region—Mikey stumbles into a grotto where five smooth stones are arranged purposefully on a primeval altar. Carved with stylized animal petroglyphs, the rocks naturally draw the attention of the boy, who pockets them without much regard for the nearby cave painting depicting five sinister, shadowy figures.

Once the Taylors return home with Mikey’s plundered stones unknowingly stashed in their luggage, the usual haunted house phenomena ensue: fleeting shadows, weird noises, moving objects, spectral handprints, and so forth. Mikey is initially thought to be responsible for these occurrences, an assumption fueled in part by the boy’s even-stranger-than-usual behavior. At first he's just having conversations with an unseen companion named “Jenny,” but Mikey’s alarming habits soon escalate to include arson and violence against animals. Fortunately for the Taylors, some uncannily plot-specific YouTube videos helpfully explain their predicament. The trespassing spirits are in fact a quintet of Native American demons that can assume the form of a bison, coyote, crow, snake, and wolf. Bound to five sacred stones, the entities were known to the ancestral Puebloans as cruel child-snatchers. They are also purportedly connected to that people’s “mysterious disappearance.” (The film uses the discouraged moniker “Anasazi” to refer to the ancestral Puebloans, and lamentably but unsurprisingly distills the complex, disputed history of that culture’s rise and decline into a spooky Injun legend.)

This knowledge is actually for the viewer’s benefit, not the Taylors’, given that no one but Mikey is even aware that he is in possession of the magic devil rocks. The spirits terrorize the family haphazardly for what seems like hours and hours of screen time before the obligatory climactic exorcism. This is overseen by Latina mystic Teresa (Alma Martinez) and her granddaughter Gloria (Ilza Rosario), who convey the seriousness of the situation by furrowing their brows earnestly and murmuring in hushed terror about an evil presence. (It’s unclear whether the absence of actual Native American actors in the film is a slight or a blessing, given that the film rather lazily employs distorted Native culture solely for atmospheric purposes.) Ultimately, Peter makes a selfless sacrifice on his son’s behalf, and Mikey in turn rouses himself to action in order to banish the demons back to the indigenous netherworld from whence they came.

The Darkness’ problems are multitude, but its fundamental flaw is how poorly it executes the concept of dramatic escalation. Haunted house features normally follow a succinct, well-established outline: The paranormal disturbances start out small, and then gradually intensify until climaxing in an effects-laden ghostly confrontation of some sort. Improbably, McLean and co-scripters Shayne Armstrong and S.P. Krause manage to bungle this simple model. From the moment the Taylors return home from their vacation, the film slumps into a plodding succession of hackneyed shocks that lacks any sense of mounting urgency. The ultimate goal of the demons is apparently to lure Mikey away to their spirit realm, but one could never discern that from the slapdash array of supernatural parlor tricks they serve up.  Even late in the film, the scares seem weirdly arbitrary: a humanoid shape rises up beneath Mikey’s bedsheets; shadowy arms grope forth from an ethereal portal; sooty handprints appear on Stephanie’s walls and clothes; Peter glimpses a hulking, demonic silhouette in a window. The result is aimless and formless, amounting to little more than horror movie gibberish.

What’s more, the film can’t be bothered to substantively develop any of the theoretically fertile concepts it halfheartedly tosses around. A venturous soul could make a case that The Darkness is a metaphorical reckoning for whites' archaeological plundering of Native sites, or even for the American genocide more broadly (à la The Shining), but there is precious little in the text to support such a reading.  There’s a germ of potential in the fact that the family’s latent, thinly concealed rifts make their household ripe for exploitation by demonic forces. The notion of the suburban castle rotting from within is a hoary one in horror cinema, but Bronny adds a novel touch of karmic dread when she voices her suspicions that the family’s demonic tribulations are cosmic retribution for their sins. That’s about the extent of the film’s engagement with the concept, however. McLean merely uses the family’s personal problems—a confessed affair, alcoholism, an eating disorder, etc.—to provoke trite, soapy melodrama that distracts from the already desultory creepshow elements.

This is emblematic of the film’s exasperating, almost enervating lack of ambition. One can visualize a version of the film that focuses on the festering undercurrent of deception, mistrust, and bitterness that runs through the Taylors’ lives, and the spirits’ wicked manipulation of that weakness. Or a version that approaches its off-the-shelf horror conceit from Mikey's distinctive perspective as a young, neurologically atypical individual. Or a version that fully commits to a richly realized Native American ghost story that reflects real-world folkloric traditions. The Darkness is too dull-witted for such approaches, however, preferring to cynically utilize elements like autism and Native American culture to shore up its careless, cut-and-paste screenplay.

Truly, there’s not much of anything to recommend about the the film. Unsurprisingly, Bacon is the only performer who can make the bland screenplay’s emotional beats sound convincing, although the character he’s been handed is nebulous and relentlessly dull, as are the other family members. It certainly doesn’t help that McLean can’t seem to resolve who the protagonist actually is, or who is supposed to elicit the viewer's sympathy. This ambiguity doesn’t smell like a calculated choice, but rather like a product of sloppy screenwriting. The only unexpected and humanizing moment in the script is a third act pivot on the part of Peter’s boss (Paul Reiser), an overbearing creep who softens when he comprehends just how thoroughly undone Peter has become by his recent “family troubles."

Most of the film’s visuals are unremittingly anonymous, although the design of the demons is genuinely eerie. Loosely informed by vintage photographs of traditional ceremonial dress among the Native Americans of the Southwest, the entities' true forms resemble enormous, shaggy humanoids whose partly bestial, partly skeletal features always seem to be out of focus. (The demons faintly recall Evil’s towering, goat-headed minions in Time Bandits, to fine effect.) It’s a nice bit of unsettling practical costuming in an era when ghost stories lean overwhelmingly on computer effects.

With The Forest, The Other Side of the Door, and now The Darkness, 2016 is shaping up to be a banner year for crummy horror movies about white families being menaced by non-white occult forces. Granted, McLean’s film doesn’t traffic in the same unpleasant Othering as the former two features. (The lack of living Native Americans in The Darkness sort of precludes it from doing so.) The film’s racism (and ableism) is vaguely obnoxious rather than baldly offensive, but the most egregious insult to be found in The Darkness is the film's ineptness. Presented with such a forgettable dud of a horror picture, any filmgoer should be affronted that an hour and a half of their lives were wasted in such a manner.

PostedMay 26, 2016
AuthorAndrew Wyatt
CategoriesDiary
Zootopia

Zootopia

A City Upon a Hill: Zootopia

[Note: This post contains major spoilers. It expands upon my original review of Zootopia, which appeared at St. Louis Magazine on March 3, 2016.]

A simple fact needs to be cleared up straightaway: Zootopia is not an allegory. One could be forgiven for mistaking Walt Disney Animation Studio’s 55th feature for a thickly metaphorical story, assuming that error was based solely on the film’s reviews. Many of the feature's critiques—both positive and negative in their overall assessment—heedlessly throw around the words “allegory” and “allegorical." Indeed, quite a few reviews have grumbled that the film’s symbolism is of a particularly sloppy sort. Devin Faracai at Birth Movies Death echoes several other critics when he objects that “the muddled metaphors that permeate Zootopia can leave much open to interpretation.”

The glaring weakness of such criticisms is that they are premised on a faulty assumption: namely, that Zootopia is a strongly symbolic work. If one goes looking for tidy metaphor in a film that doesn’t traffic in such devices in a meaningful way, one will inevitably come up short. It’s a bit astonishing to this writer that any viewer could experience Zootopia’s 108 minutes and walk away with the impression that the film is neatly symbolic of anything. Perhaps it’s just that junior high memories of Animal Farm—with its one-to-one allegorical mapping of real world Russian revolutionary and Stalinist figures onto the novella’s talking barnyard creatures—still prompt some filmgoers to assume that anthropomorphic beasts must symbolize something whenever they rear their furry heads.

In a limited sense, Zootopia could be regarded as a cousin to one of Aesop’s celebrated fables, in that it is a moralistic story featuring animal characters. However, Disney’s film is as dramatically and thematically sophisticated as those archaic folk tales are ruthlessly terse. The dazzling world-building that undergirds the film is a substantial clue that Zootopia has aims beyond illustrating pithy adages about prejudice. The story of earnest rabbit police officer Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin) is foremost a fantasy story. While it might contain echoes of the real world—in both its tangible details and its portrayal of social dynamics— the universe of Zootopia is a self-contained reality. It is, in fact, a dizzyingly ambitious work of speculative fiction, one that imagines how an inter-species mammalian culture might function, and in particularly how it might manifest human sociological phenomena in novel ways.

At the story level, Zootopia is predominantly a buddy picture in the spirit of odd couple action comedies like 48 Hrs. Judy and fox con artist Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman) are grudgingly partnered to solve a ticking-clock mystery in the titular animal megalopolis. However, the film also contains familiar elements drawn from noir detective fiction, as well as from numerous paranoid political thrillers in the vein of The Manchurian Candidate, The Parallax View, and Three Days of the Condor. The structure of Zootopia follows a well-worn scheme, with Judy’s path mimicking that of countless heroes who have sought out the truth in the Big City. She begins investigating a relatively small scale crime—in this case, the disappearance of devoted family mustelid Emmitt Otterton—only to gradually uncover a more disturbing and wide-ranging conspiracy. Judy regrettably draws erroneous conclusions from this discovery, setting her up for disenchantment, epiphany, and an eventual third act triumph over the Real Bad Guys.

Clearly, striking originality is not a primary virtue of Zootopia’s plot, although the film does a bang-up job of knitting together the action, comedy, and mystery aspects of its story with minimal obvious seams. Ultimately, however, the screenplay—credited to Jared Bush and Phil Johnston, with story assists from a regiment of writers—isn’t especially preoccupied with luxuriating in genre tropes. The film’s employment of, for example, cop movie clichés is more utilitarian than affectionate. (Which isn’t to say that Zootopia lacks joyful enthusiasm; it concludes with an animal dance party, after all.) The film is rather unabashed about dusting off trite plot developments, such as a scene where cape buffalo police commander Chief Bogo (Ildris Elba) demands Judy’s badge in response to her loose cannon rule-bending. Yet such comforting generic signposts are crucial, not only because Zootopia’s setting is so outlandish, but also because the film is fundamentally more of a character drama than an urban mystery. The inner journey of Judy—and to a lesser extent that of her nemesis-cum-ally Nick—is what makes the film crackle so gratifyingly. The trope-cluttered plot just a reliable substrate for Zootopia’s surprisingly deft exploration of sticky relationships and cultural brier patches.

That Judy is a compelling, entertaining heroine is overwhelmingly attributable to Goodwin’s expressive, pitch-perfect performance. Judy’s bubbly energy and unflappable, 110% approach to life could easily have become grating, but Goodwin nimbly balances the character’s infectious earnestness with traces of self-doubt and glum fatalism. It certainly doesn’t hurt that Judy is arguably the most appealingly designed character in a film that has its fair share of striking creatures. Designed by Byron Howard and Cory Loftis, she is wholly a rabbit—even her bipedal running somehow suggests a lagomorph’s gallop—and yet ever-so-slightly coded as female via human signifiers, right down to the swoop of her hip line. (There are no Minnie Mouse eyelashes or parasol skirts here; Judy wears pointedly unisex clothing.)

Sweep away the confidence games and criminal conspiracies that characterize Zootopia’s surface plot and a more delicate story emerges, one concerned with Judy’s passage through a succession of outlooks. This journey is partly about her perceptions of own abilities and behavior, but also about her stance towards the multi-species society that surrounds her. The film’s prologue illustrates that Judy has always been a bunny with an itch for bigger things. Although born into an enormous clan of carrot farmers in the sleepy, majority-rabbit hamlet of Bunnyburrow,  she has longed to become a police officer since childhood. However, her ambition is not merely to serve as some country sheriff in her hometown, but to join the elite ranks of the police force that serves and protects the super-city of Zootopia.

The excitement and relative prestige of urban policing play a role this yearning, but Judy is also plainly a true believer in the idea of a diverse, equitable mammalian society. Much to the chagrin of her parents, she actually internalized her middle school lessons about the virtues of a liberalized, inter-species world. Judy’s outspoken belief in the shining ideals of Zootopia is rather embarrassing to the other inhabitants of Bunnyburrow. Children are obliged to repeat the platitudes of mammalian equality, and even to stage precious little plays advocating those principles, but to actually believe wholeheartedly in them (especially as an adult) is regarded as gauche and a little naïve.

Judy might have been sired in Bunnyburrow, but her heart has always belonged to Zootopia, and to the more liberalized outlook that its citizens ostensibly embody. Judy’s wide-eyed train ride to the city—accompanied by the bouncy vocalizations and heartening lyrics of Shakira’s “Try Everything”—is thus less of a journey into foreign territory and more of a spiritual homecoming. Judy exemplifies the unlikely progressive prodigal who originally hails from a small, conservative town. She believes that the Big City not only promises cultural vibrancy and opportunity, but also nurtures values that are more in line with her own.

This expectation is not unjustified. The political divide between America's liberal urban centers and conservative rural areas is well-documented and has only sharpened over time. As Josh Korn described in an Atlantic piece following President Obama’s 2012 re-election:

[V]irtually every major city (100,000-plus population) in the United States of America has a different outlook from the less populous areas that are closest to it. The difference is no longer about where people live, it's about how people live: in spread-out, open, low-density privacy—or amid rough-and-tumble, in-your-face population density and diverse communities that enforce a lower-common denominator of tolerance among inhabitants.

Crucially, it is not so much that the accretion of liberal citizens renders cities more liberal, the immigration of progressive country folk like Judy notwithstanding. The causal relationship appears to flow the other way: Living in diverse, cosmopolitan communities tends to make people more tolerant. Astonishingly, the effect can be observed even at the neighborhood and street levels. The more integrated an area is, the less prejudiced its citizens become over time, an effect of the “passive tolerance” that results from countless small daily observations and interactions.

Zootopia projects this dynamic onto its fictional mammalian setting, while also reinforcing the relative attractiveness of urban life through the spectacular design of its city environs. Certainly, it’s hard not to share Judy’s elation at the sight of Zootopia’s gleaming high-rises, wondrous transit, and bustling street life. Initially, even the supposedly miserable realities of urban living—the cramped one-room apartment with noisy neighbors, for example—don’t phase Judy’s enthusiasm. She’s living her dream, and that’s all that matters. However, it doesn’t take long for the paradoxical isolation of the Big City to take its toll on her disposition. This is only exacerbated by the condescending treatment she receives from Chief Bogo and other ZPD personnel, not to mention her encounters with various cynical and prejudicial behaviors that puncture her positive assumptions about city folk.

While she experiences a few instances of overt inter-species bigotry—most notably in her own workplace—much of her disillusionment stems from her early run-ins with Nick Wilde. The fox is practically her mirror image: a venal realist and petty grifter who is not above exploiting do-gooder liberalism for his own mercenary ends. As the viewer eventually learns, Nick wasn’t always so ruthlessly contemptuous of multi-cultural kumbayas, having had his inclusive illusions shattered as a youth by a pack of fox-loathing herbivorous bullies. (This, of course, inverts a prelude sequence in which little Judy is terrorized and wounded by a local fox for daring to stand up his harassing behavior.) Nick’s cynicism has only hardened since this formative incident, and he has resolved to be the backstabbing sneak-thief that other species often assume him to be.

It is not merely Nick’s smugly contemptuous attitude that undermines Judy’s beliefs, however, but his penchant for tweaking her earnest liberalism. The pair’s visit to the sloth-staffed Department of Motor Vehicles to follow up on a clue makes for an amusing extended gag, but it also serves as a way for Nick to wheedle Judy for her guileless principles. “Are you saying that because he’s a sloth, he can’t be fast?,” Nick sarcastically chides, even as the DMV bureaucrats staple and stamp application forms at a maddeningly glacial pace. Zootopia’s multi-species society must necessarily contend with the realities of vastly different sizes, shapes, strengths, speeds, and abilities among its populace. Bromides about mammalian equality aside, the physical differences between, say, a lemming and a rhinoceros have practical consequences. This is a fact that Chief Bogo underlines as he attempts to convince Judy that her exile to parking ticket duty is nothing personal: “It’s not about how badly you want something, it’s about what you are capable of.”

This highlights the refreshing sophistication of Zootopia’s ethos, and its refusal to fit snugly within a tidy metaphorical box. Like its Disney Animation predecessors The Princess and the Frog, Frozen, and Big Hero 6, the film labors modestly but diligently to chip away at some of the more spurious cultural canards that Disney itself has spent decades constructing. (Bogo again: “Life isn’t some cartoon musical where you sing a little song and all your insipid dreams magically come true!”) Early in the film, Judy’s own parents (Don Lake and Bonnie Hunt) offer what is perhaps the bluntest indictment of the traditional Disney worldview. Sometimes, they caution, one can yearn for something desperately and work for it relentlessly… and still fail. Notably, their warning is not disproved by anything that unfolds later in the film. Judy’s closing voiceover even reiterates the sentiment: “Real life is messy. We all have limitations. We all make mistakes.” For an animated feature from the House of Mouse to present such down-to-earth truisms would have been unthinkable two decades ago.

The optimistic but guarded realism of the film’s moral universe is also mirrored in Zootopia's relatively positive but balanced stance regarding the virtues of urbanism. While the film ultimately portrays diverse, high-density living as a vital source of tolerance, empathy, and cultural enrichment, the depiction allows for ambiguity. Like any major city, Zootopia is shown as troubled by crime, decay, and economic disparities. Moreover, the metropolis is not presented as some paradise that is free from specist stereotypes and resentments. The uglier side of the city is illustrated by incidents such as Nick’s rough treatment in a de facto elephant-only ice cream parlor. (They don’t specifically ban foxes, of course; they just reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, and they just happen to refuse Nick.) Conversely, the film is generous towards its rural characters: It is amiable pie vendor and former bully Gideon Grey (Phill Johnston) who inadvertently provides the folk knowledge that re-opens Judy’s case.

Indeed, Assistant Mayor Bellweather’s (Jenny Slate) scheme to seize power is based on exploiting latent urban myths regarding the inherent savagery of predator species. Her master plan to poison the carnivorous citizens of Zootopia and thereby unleash their murderous “baser” selves merely adds malicious intent to a scenario that is eerily reminiscent of the real world saga of lead and urban crimes rates. As Kevin Drum documented in a seminal Mother Jones piece, the uptick in crime in the latter half of the 20th century appears to have been linked directly to childhood lead exposure. Kids poisoned by lead-containing gasoline and paint grew up to be adolescents and adults with serious impulse-control and aggression problems. Of course, by the time this connection was discovered, right-wing demagogues had long been blaming rising crime on the allegedly violent tendencies of urban black Americans in particular. (Even as early as 1965, conservative intellectuals preferred to attribute spiking crime to a supposed "pathology" in black culture, rather that risk flirting with outright scientific racism. Hence the popularity of the notorious Moynihan Report, which discovered a pseudo-respectable way to blame black single mothers for the crime in their neighborhoods.)

However, it bears repeating that Zootopia doesn’t present its plot and setting particulars as decisively metaphorical. The film’s story, gags, and visual design are too dependent on the fascinating peculiarities of its animal universe; there is not much daylight for allegory. Unlike real world humans, Zootopia's citizens must contend with sharp, undeniable differences in genetics and morphology. It's hardly specist to observe that all cheetahs are faster than all koalas, or that all giraffes are taller than all woodchucks. The film’s predator species did in fact originally evolve to stalk and devour prey species, and Zootopia is partly a thought experiment on how a multi-mammalian community could acknowledge that biological reality and still go about its daily routine with lions and gazelles texting side-by-side.

If anything, the remove provided by the film’s generously developed setting allows Zootopia to explore the broad phenomena surrounding prejudice without reference to any real world tribes. Far from sanitizing and neutering the subject, the film’s approach permits it to emphasize the absurd, insidious, and profoundly personal effects of bigotry. The absence of clear-cut real world metaphors—Are the predators or the prey supposed to symbolize racial minorities?—is a feature, not a bug. It allows the viewer to potentially see traces of themselves in any character at any moment, and thereby broadens the film’s empathetic reach.

Indeed, some of the film’s most memorable jokes involve reconfiguring familiar dynamics regarding race, sex, gender, and so forth in offbeat, amusing ways. Witness Judy’s hasty assumption that only the largest, most fearsome polar bear in the room could be notorious Tundratown crime boss Mr. Big. (The gangland godfather is actually an arctic shrew.) Or her gently reproachful clarification that “cute” is a reclaimed pejorative that rabbits use in reference to one another, but which no other species should utter. Or her admonishment to Nick that touching a sheep’s wool without their permission is entitled and intrusive, no matter how curious one might be about its texture.

Even more impressive is the way that the film slyly utilizes its story to reveal the myriad ways that bigotry manifests on a daily basis. At the personal level, for example, Judy and Nick’s falling out is exacerbated when she first thoughtlessly proclaims an ugly stereotype, then condescendingly reassures Nick that he isn’t like “those other” foxes. When she later return to Zootopia to offer Nick a sobbing mea culpa, it’s as genuine and heartfelt as any human reconciliation following an episode of obtuse tactlessness. Institutional bigotry is scrutinized as well. In one of the most closely observed moments in the film, Nick leaps to Judy’s defense by skewering the ZPD’s biased treatment of its “token bunny.” He points out the injustice of saddling Judy with a challenging task, inferior resources, and arbitrary time limit, and then using her inevitable failure as proof of her species’ inadequacy.

Zootopia is dense with these sort of remarkable exchanges: broadly familiar dramatic scenarios, metamorphosed cleverly for the film’s inimitable animal world. To regard this marvelous intersection of theoretical sociology and fantasy storytelling as clumsy allegory is a regrettable misreading of the film. Moreover, it prompts one to overlook the intelligence and wit of the film’s writing, acting, and design, which cohere superbly into one of the most stimulating works of studio feature animation in years.

 

PostedApril 28, 2016
AuthorAndrew Wyatt
CategoriesDiary
The Passion of Joan of Arc

The Passion of Joan of Arc

2016 Classic French Film Festival: The Passion of Joan of Arc

[Note: This introduction to The Passion of Joan of Arc was presented on March 19, 2015 at the Webster University Moore Auditorium as a part of the 2016 Robert Classic French Film Festival.]

I have been privileged to introduce several features for the Classic French Film Festival in recent years, among them some of the most revered cinematic works of all time, in French or any language. From this podium I have been honored to preface such canonical films as Grand Illusion and Beauty and the Beast. Bear that in mind, then, when I say: The feature that will we will be screening tonight is a singular and revelatory experience. Carl Theodor Dreyer’s 1928 silent feature The Passion of Joan of Arc is widely regarded by film scholars as a masterpiece, and justly so. You do not need not to be a connoisseur of the cinema, however, to appreciate its striking visuals, searing pathos, and timeless lead performance by Renée Jeanne Falconetti. It is that extraordinarily rare species of film whose significance is almost immediately self-evident.

Prior to Joan of Arc, director Dreyer had made a respected name for himself in European film, helming esteemed works such as the Danish domestic satire Master of the House and the German romantic tragedy Michael, a milestone in early gay cinema. However, the works that are today regarded as his most formidable and groundbreaking—Joan, of course, as well as Vampyr, Ordet, and Gertrud—still lay years or even decades in the future. It is therefore all the more remarkable that a French production company would invite this Danish filmmaker to write and direct a feature about a beloved French folk hero: Joan of Arc, the maiden whose visions purportedly propelled France to its eventual victory in the Hundred Years’ War.

There had been renewed interest in Joan at the time that Dreyer tackled the project, owing to her canonization in 1920, an acknowledgement by the Catholic Church that her capture, trial, and execution at the hands of the English-allied Burgundian faction constituted a martyrdom. Dreyer also had the good fortune of having access to the recently published transcripts of Joan’s trial, which became the basis for his script.

There were earlier efforts to resurrect Joan for the burgeoning film audiences of late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The most notable of these is Cecil B DemIlle’s silent 1916 epic Joan the Woman, a perfectly handsome feature that exemplifies that director’s grandiose and at times didactic approach to historical drama. However, The Passion of Joan of Arc dwells on a rarefied plane that hovers far above Demille’s film. As Dreyer’s introductory notes for his feature make evident, he was keenly aware that he could have simply made yet another costume drama. He instead opted for a different path. When it premiered in France in October of 1928, The Passion of Joan of Arc was unlike anything that had heretofore been witnessed in cinema.

Even a contemporary viewer likely has expectations for a work of fictionalized religious and political history. Dreyer seems to savor smashing those assumptions to bits in the film’s opening scenes. Eschewing depictions of Joan’s heavenly visions or military exploits, he begins at the end, with a pitiable, anguished woman in chains. Although the director dictated that a colossally expensive set be constructed to replicate the Castle of Rouen where Joan was detained, the film that he produced absolutely revels in close-ups. It is an approach that is all the more perverse given the near absence of movie star faces in the cast of characters. Sans makeup and often severely lit, Joan’s inquisitors and wardens glower and leer over her like grotesque parodies of piggish masculinity, all warts, jowls, and crooked teeth.

In comparison, Falconetti’s countenance is positively beatific. Also untouched by makeup, it teeters hypnotically between agony and ecstasy. Dreyer pushes his camera straight into the actress’ face in one uncomfortably long shot after another, as tears—those endless tears!—tumble down her cheeks. Falconetti was primarily a theatrical performer, but that is certainly not in evidence here. Hers is a face seemingly made for cinema, capable of conveying oceans of colliding emotions via the tiniest changes in expression. Her Joan is no placid saint, but a character of ferocious feeling, alternately joyous and terrified, morose and contented. She is a woman both devastatingly relatable and not wholly of this world, her pale eyes always appearing to focus on something that lies just beyond the earthly realm.

Truthfully, there is not much of a plot to be found in the film: Joan is questioned, deceived, tortured, mocked, degraded, and ultimately executed by being burned alive. There are no heroic rescues or last-minute pardons. As in a film about the Titanic or the 300 Spartans, we know how this story ends. The genius of The Passion of Joan of Arc is that the tale’s utter bleakness is crucial to is humane power. With terrific forcefulness and urgency, Dreyer places us squarely within Joan’s experience, demanding that we feel the grueling reality of her inexorable doom just as she might have felt it. This makes for a desolate cinematic experience, to say the least, but also one that elicits profound empathy.

The modern viewer is likely to view The Passion of Joan of Arc as a deeply political film, albeit one that is less about the particulars of 1920s France than about the persecution and destruction of deviant individuals through countless eras and cultures. Despite his political conservatism, Dreyer was a filmmaker who was fascinated with the monsters that threatened society’s rules, whether they might be gay artists, proud women, accused witches, mad prophets, vampires, or even the Devil himself. Joan too embodies such outsiders: a woman who would not submit to her male captors, and therefore had to be eradicated.

One final annotation: In its present, nearly complete form, The Passion of Joan of Arc comes to us by a strange, calamitous path. Despite Dreyer’s objections, the film was heavily edited for its initial release at the behest of government censors and Catholic leaders. The original uncut negative was unfortunately destroyed, and the director’s subsequent piecemeal reconstruction of the negative was also destroyed. Prints of several versions circulated in the ensuing decades, until one of those unlikely twists occurred that seem to characterize the history of film. In 1981, a Danish copy of the Dreyer’s original uncut version was found, of all places, in a janitor’s closet in an Oslo mental hospital. Although it differs from an alternate French print in relatively minor aesthetic ways, the Norwegian discovery has permitted audiences around the world to finally experience The Passion of Joan of Arc as closely as possible to the way that Dreyer intended it.

PostedMarch 20, 2016
AuthorAndrew Wyatt
CategoriesEssays
CommentPost a comment
The Witch

The Witch

Malleus Maleficarum: The Witch

[Note: This post contains major spoilers. It expands upon my original review of The Witch which appeared at St. Louis Magazine on February 17, 2016.]

If American horror cinema can be provisionally assumed to have an evolutionary path, the ingenious, massively entertaining 2011 feature The Cabin in the Woods represents a cul-de-sac of sorts in the genre’s phylogeny. By recasting all the myriad monsters, mutants, and maniacs of the genre as mere cogs in a Lovecraftian ritual, the film punctured the mythic potency of those terrors. Following two decades or more of arch, self-aware horror films—arguably commencing not with Scream in 1996, but with director Wes Craven’s more gratifying and frightening New Nightmare two years earlier—Cabin seemed to present the definitive, gleefully bleak last word in “meta-horror”. (Last year’s Final Girls mashed up a similar premise with The Last Action Hero, but proved to be an inferior work compared to Cabin.) Once horror fans have witnessed seemingly every ghost and goblin of legend reduced to mere props in a choreographed playlet of bloodletting, where does the genre go from there?

The response implicitly advanced by director Robert Eggers’ colonial tale of terror The Witch is that American horror must discard its drollness and engage with primal fears in a wholly sincere manner. There is a cyclical logic to this approach: Having pitied, romanticized, and deconstructed every bogeymen the night has to offer, the genre has little alternative but to return to first principals. It is obliged to unearth now-familiar monsters and explore what made them so frightening once upon a time. Crucially, The Witch undertakes this rehabilitation within a historical context, asking the viewer to align themselves with the demon-haunted worldview of a Puritan family in 17th-century New England. In contrast to the abundant winks that many contemporary horror pictures direct at the viewer, there is nothing even vaguely sardonic about Eggers’ film. (The auteur that he most resembles in this respect might be Darren Aronofsky.) The Witch is essentially a wordy, unhurried, mud-spattered period drama, albeit one about black magic. This may create confusion for viewers who are expecting a more conventional horror feature in Colonial Williamsburg drag. Make no mistake, however: The Witch is a terrifying and deeply unsettling vision, the kind that squirms restlessly in the mind long after it has ended.

The film opens at the conclusion of a trial, in which William (Ralph Ineson) is found guilty of “prideful conceit” and banished along with his entire family from the New England plantation where they have resided since crossing the Atlantic. Exactly what doctrinal line William crossed is never elaborated upon, but it’s evident that his self-righteous conviction is equal to that of his judges. However, the film isn’t concerned with the particulars of William’s “more-orthodox-than-thou” pissing match with the plantation’s elders. His exile is a means to separate the family from the perspective and support of a larger community, and to establish the depths of William’s stubbornness. (He would rather risk his family’s lives in the wilderness than admit error and grovel before his accusers.) This is but one of many correspondences that The Witch shares with The Shining, a feature which also requires that the family unit first be isolated before it is riven along its natural fissures by a supernatural malevolence.

The clan featured in the film includes William’s wife Katherine (Kate Dickie), their adolescent daughter Thomasin (Anya Taylor-Joy), preteen son Caleb (Harvey Scrimshaw), and young fraternal twins Mercy (Ellie Grainger) and Jonas (Lucas Dawson). At various times, the perspective of each family member (save the twins) is afforded a substantial chunk of screen time. However, if the film can be said to have a protagonist, it is Thomasin. Not incidentally, the film’s first shot is of her face as she listens to the verdict in her father’s trial, her brown doe eyes round with apprehension beneath a wide-brimmed hat. Thomasin is present for most—though, crucially, not all—of the film’s significant events, and that proximity eventually serves as a burning mark that lures her family's suspicions when misfortunes begin to mount.

For a time, however, William and his clan thrive reasonably well on their own, their segregation from the plantation notwithstanding. In a meadow alongside a tangled wood, the family constructs a tiny wooden cottage and barn, plants a modest plot of corn, and raises up a little herd of goats for milk. Their hopes for the future are given a tangible form when Katherine bears a fifth child, Samuel. Yet despite the passages of rustic simplicity that characterize this stretch of the film—father tending the fields, mother nursing the baby—the viewer is never completely at ease, due in large part to The Witch’s remorseless and fantastically discomfiting soundscape.

From the moment that the family departs the plantation, Mark Koven’s score begins droning, tapping, and whining out a hellish din of ambient noise that scrapes the nerves raw. Meanwhile, Adam Stein’s fiendishly uncanny sound design pushes all the wrong elements to the film’s aural foreground. Case in point: When the family kneels at the site of their new homestead, holding aloft their arms in ecstatic worship, the sound mix emphasizes the buzzing of insects. It is a moment of Christian thankfulness, and yet one is put in mind of plague and putrescence, and of Beelzebub, Lord of the Flies, the demonic prince named in Paradise Lost and Pilgrim’s Progress. As the camera slowly pushes in on the rustling, green-gray trees of the nearby woods, the score rises to a keening crescendo. The message in unmistakable: Something evil is lurking nearby, watching and waiting for the right moment to strike.

That dreadful moment arrives one day while Thomasin is minding Samuel at Katherine’s behest. In the space of only a second or two, the child vanishes. A rustling at the edge of the wood is the only trace left in the immediate aftermath of his disappearance. The family searches the forest in vain first for days, and then weeks. Eventually, William settles on a hungry wolf as the likely culprit in the baby’s abduction, but no one in the family seems to a wholly accept this explanation, even William himself. The viewer, however, is allowed to witness Samuel’s ghastly fate: By firelight, a naked crone slays the babe with a blade, then smears her body and her staff with a concoction derived from his blood. She is briefly glimpsed rubbing the staff between her thighs in a quaking trance, and later, under a swollen moon, she seems to float into the night air.

Narratively speaking, Samuel’s murder is The Witch’s decisive turning point, the event from which all ensuing conflict and agony subsequently flows. (Or, at least appears to flow. Some woes, such as a blighted corn crop, may simply be unlucky coincidences.) Katherine’s grief keeps her abed day and night, where she whispers sobbing prayers that solicit God for the wisdom to understand the reasons for His evident cruelty. She unfairly but perhaps understandably turns a frigid eye on Thomasin, who, as Samuel’s caretaker at the moment of his disappearance, is naturally faulted when no other explanation for the crime is forthcoming. Thomasin in turn unwisely exacerbates her situation by spinning a sadistic lie in order to terrorize Mercy, a fantasy in which she is the “witch of the wood” who slew and ate her little brother.

Meanwhile, Katherine’s teeth-gnashing mourning makes it problematic for William to come clean about his own deceit, involving the illicit sale of his wife’s cherished silver cup for needed animal traps. William brings Caleb along on a secret dawn expedition to check said traps, and the lad’s pressing questions necessitate that the father fold the son into his conspiracy. This collusion in turn prods at Caleb’s nascent sense of responsibility towards his family, prompting him to later mount his own trap-clearing search with Thomasin, which leads to his capture by the witch, now cloaked in a comely illusion. And so it goes, as a cascade of ill-fated events and dubious choices drag the household downward into increasingly dire and hysterical circumstances.

Eggers’ choice to provide a third-person peek at the witch is a crucial decision, as it signals to the viewer that the film is not just a psychological thriller about panicky, mistrustful people colliding off one another. An eldritch and menacing presence is indeed lurking in the woods, and it thinks nothing of using infanticide as a mere token in its unholy rites. However, it is also crucial that such glimpses of black magic remain relatively uncommon for most of The Witch’s running time. Until the film’s final act, Samuel’s ritual murder and the later attack on Caleb are the only events with obvious supernatural aspects. The presence of flying ointments, enchanted trickery, and demonic possession mark the film as a work of magical realism. Yet it is also a psychological thriller about panicky, mistrustful people colliding off one another.

Indeed, the witch is generally incidental to the plot, in the sense that the family’s damnation is to a significant extent self-inflicted. The crone is truthfully more catalyst than predator. Much as the Overlook Hotel’s spectral tentacles worm into Jack Torrance’s weak points in The Shining—his rage, resentment, violence, alcoholism, and smarmy sense of white male entitlement—the witch’s bloody art is just a pebble that starts a landslide. It’s perhaps overly glib to describe Eggers’ film as “The Crucible, if the witchcraft were real,” but aside from their commonalities of milieu, The Witch and Arthur Miller’s play share broad thematic similarities. They are both works about people responding in all the worst possible ways when fear clenches them in its talons

As much as any feat of dread-inducing atmospherics, one of The Witch’s most conspicuous achievements is how potently it functions as both a deliberately estranging work of historical realism and as a salient contemporary critique of the American mind. On the one hand, the cast and crew go out of their way to render 17th-century New England as a place that is wholly uncanny to the modern viewer, no matter how cursorily familiar the setting might be from half-remembered textbooks. Some of this is attributable to visual design. The eastern Ontario exterior locations (subbing for New England) establish a skeletal wilderness of brown grasses and thin, scabby tree trunks. The film’s daylight shots are washed in a ghostly gray that lends even nominally handsome landscapes a chilly, unwelcoming severity. Meanwhile the high-contrast night scenes of black and gold evoke the chiaroscuro paintings of contemporary Dutch artist Gerard van Honthorst, as well as the enveloping candlelit interiors of Barry Lyndon, but without that film’s splashes of lush romanticism. The Witch’s New England is not quaint or pastoral. It looks dry, cold, and half in its grave.

However, it is the screenplay and the performances in particular that scratch thick boundaries between the experiences of the The Witch’s characters and those of the modern day viewer. This is in part due to the sheer Otherness of their austere, Calvinist worldview—at least as expressed in the script—in which sins such as pride and idleness are among the worst offenses imaginable against God and His creation. Apart from the archaic details of matchlock rifles and the like, the film’s characters respond to the events around them in ways that are doubtlessly peculiar to a secular, 21st-century American. The most obvious example is the way that their Puritan minds leap straightaway to witchcraft upon encountering anything inexplicable. Yet the distancing aspects of the film extend even to the particulars of the characters’ vocabularies, accents, and cadences. (Ralph Ineson’s deep, grumbling tones alone give him the seeming of a visitor from another era.) Through such elements, The Witch continually reinforces the notion that the people, culture, and time period depicted are just plain different than anything with which the viewer is familiar.

And yet… all of these alienating aspects notwithstanding, The Witch is also very much an acidic depiction of the timeless and reliably feverish American response to external threats. Less gauchely allegorical than M. Night Shyamalan’s flawed but fascinating post-9/11 fable The Village, Eggers’ feature shares with that 2004 film a sharp sense of the sociological dimension of fear. The Witch’s 17th-century New England setting is not merely for picturesque ambiance: It provides a glimpse of American angst in its embryonic form. In this time and place, what critic Mark Breitenberg calls the “anxious masculinity” of the English Renaissance collides with stern religiosity and frontier hardship. This nexus can be observed in William’s insecurity about his relative fecklessness as a Puritan patriarch. He seems to fear Katherine’s disapproval as much as he does any Satanic minion, and the most cutting jibes that Thomasin flicks at him relate to his failure to provide for and protect his family. His sole on-screen attempt to fire a rifle literally backfires in his face. As Susan Faludi described in her essential study of American anxiety, The Terror Dream, a cowardly, ineffectual man was the most wretched creature in the colonial New England imagination:

Puritan men might be “brides” of Christ, but they were expected to be paternal protectors in their own households: as Christ guarded them, so they were expected to shield their wives and dependents. In a society that regarded the home as the “little commonwealth,” the foundational model for the state, the effective performance of husbands was a matter of profound public import. Yet the story of the Indian raids was plagued by episodes of botched male protection—of sentinels who failed to sit sentry, of husbands who were absent when their wives and children were seized or slaughtered, of townsmen who hid in the woods, of militia who refused to give chase.

As Faludi later elaborates, such anxiety is closely linked to conceptions of manhood and virility in the Puritan mind. She quotes minister Increase Mather hand-wringing about the “strange degeneracy” afflicting the allegedly craven second generation of Massachusetts Bay Colony settlers, as well as a military chaplain, who in 1678 lamented that “[a] tender, softly, effeminate People is a curse and a misery.” The Witch illustrates such sexual subtext in subtle but insistent ways. When William is haunted by his inadequacies, he goes to the woodpile and begins splitting logs, a distinctly phallic activity that nonetheless seems to lack direction. (Said woodpile accumulates to a ludicrous scale, providing a looming visual metric of William’s anguish.) Such compulsive hewing echoes not only the aforementioned Jack Torrance’s bloody axe-play in The Shining, but also the campy but under-appreciated 2005 remake of The Amityville Horror, in which creepy, ghost-addled stepfather George Lutz labors menacingly at the chopping stump. Late in The Witch, William is fatally gored by the demonic he-goat Black Phillip—a humiliating and feminizing penetration—and is then half-buried by his own collapsing woodpile, as though finally done in by his own neurotic idleness.

In a stridently patriarchal culture such as Puritan New England, of course, there is no more vicious an insult than to equate a man with a woman, that weakest of creatures. Indeed, given that a meek, obedient woman who quakes before God and husband alike is the feminine ideal in the Puritan society of The Witch, it’s unsurprising that the titular villain is such a terrifying figure. Few things could embody a perverse reflection of the film’s severe, male-centered Protestant worldview like a woman living independently in the forest, her formidable power flowing not from her relationship with an earthly husband but from a voluntary compact with the Prince of Darkness himself.

As historian Carol S. Karlsen advanced in her groundbreaking work The Devil in the Shape of a Woman, one of the distinguishing features of the New England witch hysteria was that its victims were drawn from a more prosperous middle class background than the marginalized peasant women typically targeted in medieval witch hunts. A woman who could accumulate wealth, own property, and bring lawsuits—as some Puritan women did, particularly widows—represented a subdued but insidious threat to the inseparable religious and sociopolitical foundations of colonial New England. In light of this historical context, William’s theft of Katherine’s silver cup—her sole possession of significant value—represents far more than a noble lie. Desperate to provide for his family and thereby affirm his masculinity before God, William’s larcenous gambit targets the single household treasure that is definitively his wife’s property, thereby robbing her of her remaining sliver of economic independence.

While this betrayal and its narrative ripples are critical to the film’s story, the tensions between Katherine and William involve issues more unsettling than matrimonial power struggles. The most destabilizing variable in the household is Thomasin herself, whose emergent womanhood threatens to throw the entire clan into a crypto-incestuous tailspin. It is implied with the utmost delicacy, but a sexually transgressive electricity surrounds the interactions between William and his eldest daughter. It can be observed in the furtive glances between the pair, in the way that Thomasin dutifully but deftly removes her father’s filthy clothes as Katherine looks on, and in the way that William holds his daughter in an agonized, crushing embrace when he comes to suspect that she is the source of the family’s woes.

Accordingly, Katherine’s mounting antipathy for Thomasin extends beyond the girl’s role in Samuel’s disappearance. With her first menstruation, Thomasin is transmuted from a beauteous child into a potential temptress in Katherine’s eyes. The fact that the only adult male in the vicinity is the girl’s father renders her sexuality all the more menacing, as it threatens to upend the household’s God-given order in the most abominable way imaginable. For Caleb, who is utterly isolated from any other examples of virginal femininity, his older sister is evolving into a source of shameful, erotic curiosity. He seems uneasy around Thomasin, nervously stealing glances at her cleavage, his once-benign sibling having become something at one mesmerizing and repellent. Little wonder, then, that the witch exploits the boy's agony by taking the form of a crimson-cloaked siren in order to ensnare him. The film’s discomfiting undertones of juvenile sexuality also emerge once Caleb is returned, finding expression in the boy’s pseudo-orgasmic grunts and cries as a possessing spirit first torments him, then releases him into Christ’s waiting arms.

And what of that barely-glimpsed witch? Her attributes seem plucked from the feverish anecdotes of an inquisitor’s handbook rather than any real-world depiction of pagan or folk magical practices. Eggers’ film is certainly not the first horror feature to exploit this “demonological” conception of the witch in an earnest manner. Dario Argento’s “Three Mothers” trilogy—Suspiria, Inferno, and The Mother of Tears—is perhaps the most renowned example, although those films arguably owe more to the director’s earlier giallo features, to Disney’s Technicolor fairy tales, and to the eschatological conspiracy theory of late 20th-century Christianity. An icily modern restatement of the witch is found in Lars von Trier’s Antichrist. In that film, a feminist scholar’s grief pushes her to internalize the misogynist, Manichean worldview critiqued in her studies, ultimately sending her into a frenzy of self-loathing violence. Although indebted to Argento’s trilogy, Rob Zombie’s woefully under-valued The Lords of Salem closely resembles The Witch, in that it assumes that the worst fears of the Puritans were well-founded. (Both films also conclude calamitously, with copious innocent blood shed and evil reigning victorious.) Zombie, however, places his Satanic brides in a contemporary setting, where widespread unbelief in their existence gives them the upper hand.

Eggers’ film, in contrast, situates the demonological witch in her natural habit, as it were, surrounded by fearful Christian men and women who see the Devil’s hoof print everywhere. Not that the vigilance of Thomasin and her family matters in the end, as Satan ultimately uses their divisive suspicions to his advantage. The overtly malicious acts that the witch commits tend to be of a corporeal rather than magical natural—the snatching and slaying of Samuel, for example. It is Satan himself who seems to use supernatural means to propagate the most vicious mischief. It is his demons that wriggle into Caleb’s soul once the witch’s charms render the boy vulnerable. It is he who whispers falsehoods in Jonas and Mercy’s ears as Black Phillip, sowing further discord and confusion within the family. It is he who sends blissful visions of lost children (and the precious silver cup) to Katherine, permitting his raven to tear away her nipple as she laughs euphorically. And, of course, after Thomasin is the only one left standing amid the slaughter and ruin, it is Lucifer who comes to her, dressed as a hissing, dandyish highwayman and proffering a book that begs for the girl’s signature.

Ultimately, perhaps the most cunning and captivating aspect of The Witch is the superbly balanced character of its tone, which captures with darkling precision the sensations of both tragic folly and inexorable doom that swirl about Thomasin’s family. Eggers’ film posits a world in which a genuine mystic evil exists, but where frantic overreaction to that menace is arguably a more substantial threat to the family’s safety and stability. (To paraphrase Joseph Heller, just because witches are out to get you, doesn’t mean you aren’t paranoid.) At risk of straining a War on Terror analogy, if Samuel’s murder is 9/11, then most of what follows in The Witch is the self-inflicted clusterfuck of worthless security theater, trodden civil liberties, and endless military quagmires.

The crushing guilt and existential horror of the Puritan worldview are appalling enough, as illustrated by Caleb’s runaway panic at the thought of poor, unbaptized Samuel roasting for eternity in hellfire. Arguably just as grueling and destructive, however, is the perpetual state of spiritual siege produced when people obsesses ceaselessly over the prospect of outside attack. When Thomasin finally joins the witches of the wood in their nocturnal flight, her rapturous laughter is as much about the burdens she is leaving behind as the delicious delights promised by the purring Devil. What the crones and their Prince offer is not just power, but freedom from the sort of enervating, uncontrolled terror that can split families, communities, and entire nations asunder.

PostedMarch 18, 2016
AuthorAndrew Wyatt
CategoriesDiary
Newer / Older
RT_CRITIC_TM_BADGE.jpg
The Take-Up Podcast

Twin Peaks: The Return

2007 - 2016: A Personal Cinematic Canon

download.png

Recent Posts

Blog
New Reviews at The Take-Up
about 7 years ago
Miles to Go Before I Sleep
about 7 years ago
Delete Your Account: 'Friend Request'
about 7 years ago
Feminine Mystique: 'mother!'
about 7 years ago
Unmuffled Screams and Broken Hearts - 'Twin Peaks: The Return,' Parts 17 and 18
about 7 years ago
Send in the Clown: 'It'
about 7 years ago
Unmuffled Screams and Broken Hearts - Twin Peaks: The Return, Part 16
about 7 years ago
Fetal Infraction: Prevenge
about 7 years ago
You Don’t Know Why, But You’re Dying to Try: The Lure
about 7 years ago
Unmuffled Screams and Broken Hearts - Twin Peaks: The Return, Part 15
about 7 years ago

© 2007 – 2025 Andrew Wyatt