Ensign Lestat's Film Log, 19/03/2012
I spent most of my childhood watching horror films - from cheesy ones to downright frightening ones. And this despite not having seen a single classic horror. My love for horrors however died after the emergence of the gore-fests that have run riot in Hollywood. If the first 'Saw' was a disturbing testament to how far individuals can go if their emotions are willing, the rest have just capitalized and ruined a good thing. And don't get me started on the torture-porn/ unnecessary nudity-filled films such as 'Hostel'.
Suffice to say I was, therefore, looking forward to 'The Woman in Black'. The trailers looked intriguing. I haven't seen the first film adaptation nor have I read the book by Susan Hill. It seems to be quite a classic in England, so there appeared to be some anxiety concerning this new rendition.
With none of those biases in mind, I went to watch my first horror film in... four years. The film had been running several weeks, but the hall filled up quite a lot, and interestingly, it looked to me like the majority of the audience were women.
The first scene of the film is quite shocking. You can't help but turn to your partner and go, 'Eh! Why?' An effective use of the Zeigarnik effect, I would say.
We then move on to the title credits. Now, I personally don't care for title credits, as I feel that considering the volume of promos, trailers, posters, interviews and 'exclusive clips' on display before a film even reaches the theatre, the sheer anticipation and surprise that title credits would have evoked in audience members of yore is completely absent today. However, this film uses the credit sequence to its advantage. Because most of us are not looking at the text anyway, our eyes are drawn to the scenes filmed in sepia in the background. These scenes tell a sad story of the man who will eventually become our protagonist, Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe).
Kipps, a young father and lawyer is asked to settle the documents of a recently deceased woman in a little village. Kipps is at this moment in dire straits (financially and emotionally) and readily takes on the assignment. He heads to the village with instructions for his son and the nanny to follow a few days later.
The scene is already set for what's to come. A reluctant man, on his own, travelling to a faraway place. The town itself looks ominous in the rain, in the dark and quiet when Kipps finally arrives. To top it all, the guesthouse where his office has booked him a room informs him that they have no vacancies for him. The owner's wife takes pity on him and lends him the attic to stay in.
Kipps soon makes his way to the house - this is done with great difficulty as no one is willing to drive up there. Once there, Kipps is virtually trapped for several hours, as a high tide floods the driveway, cutting off his only route to civilization.
Kipps trawls through papers in the house, finding out more about the family as he goes along. On his first visit he sees the shadowy figure of a woman dressed in mourning attire. His subsequent visits to and from the village to the house make more truths known to him - a lot of the children in the village have died over the years, and always in unnatural circumstances. Once the villagers find out that he has seen the woman in black they become afraid and attempt to get him to leave.
His only friend in the village is Daily (Ciaran Hinds), a kindly gentleman who invites him to his lavish home to meet with his wife (Janet McTeer). Kipps is informed that the Dailys' son died as a child, and it becomes evident during the course of the evening that Mrs. Daily has not coped well with the death.
Trouble starts when a child dies in Kipps' arms. The villagers become panic-stricken, blaming him for bringing the woman in black's curses back on the village. This curious mystery engulfs Kipps, as he spends more time in the house and discovers some very dark secrets about the family.
This film is in every way an old-fashioned, old-school horror. It's got all the chills and thrills of its genre. The audience is privy to all the spooks that our protagonist never gets to see. The camera framing is done so the eye constantly darts away from the foreground, in anticipation (and sometimes fear) of what lies or will emerge in the background. And just when you get used to that, the director turns it on its head, so the eye doesn't know where to look.
What I enjoyed most was that the thrills weren't cheap thrills. No, they all made sense. You didn't walk away wondering what that apparition was. Also, oddly enough, the director didn't always use the music to his advantage. There was one scene, and it sticks with me because of its uniqueness, where the apparition is revealed to the audience, but the thundering drums are played only when the protagonist turns around, sees the ghost, and the camera is focused on him. I still don't know if this was an error, or it was done on purpose. Interesting.
Another essential component that this film contained was a coherent storyline and plot. I think that is the advantage of adapting a written work. The director and producers aren't just pandering to some blood-thirsty, adrenaline-junkies.
The acting lends itself well to the film. Hinds and McTeer, despite little screen time, are believable in their respective roles. Credit must also go to Radcliffe. I was skeptical, to say the least, when I saw that he was attached to this film, and the first shot of him made me think I was still watching Harry Potter. But that impression didn't last long. He comes into his own from the very first scene. His acting isn't over-the-top, in fact, his Kipps is a man of subtle emotions and expressions. Even when he sees the horrors surrounding him, he emotes only a little, revealing that many of his emotions are virtually dead.
Radcliffe, I believe, is probably the luckiest of the Harry Potter main cast. Having played a character hidden behind horn-rimmed glasses ensures that the audience don't easily mistake his future characters to be Potter.
Of course, the cinematography lends itself fantastically to the ominous atmosphere. The palette is bleak, grey and foggy - the house (which looked awfully familiar to me) looked much like it walked out of most of our nightmares.
Director James Watkins of horrifying 'Eden Lake' fame certainly seems to have wanted this project. It is crisply made, without any superfluous scenes or dialogues. There aren't any red herrings either (which usually ruins films for me). It's an investigative storyline based in a supernatural setting. Quite a combo, that. He successfully has the audience on the edge of their seats, but at the same time, introduces a brief lull in the horror to not only further the story but to also give the audience a welcome break. At that point (about three-quarters through) I felt that if the scares continued, the audience would begin suffering from 'scare fatigue' (I made that one up) - simply put, the audience were so tense and afraid of what would appear next that much of the enjoyment of the film would have disappeared had the scares gone on. A brilliant judgement call by the director.
The one aspect of the film I didn't like was the ending. The film ended a couple of scenes too late, I felt. How faithful it is to the original story, I do not know, but considering this is the 21st century, unhappy or disturbing endings leave a greater impact. But leaving that aside, I think the ending does explain, in a most tenuous way, the motivations of Kipps. Without giving much away, it vindicates his own actions when dealing with the woman in black.
This film is ideal for large groups of friends, like the groups that surrounded us. We had some real squealers in the audience, and that made the atmosphere in the hall that much more fun and friendly. There are lots of scares and jump-out-of-your-seat moments to enjoy. For intelligent horror lovers, this is a true gift.
I spent most of my childhood watching horror films - from cheesy ones to downright frightening ones. And this despite not having seen a single classic horror. My love for horrors however died after the emergence of the gore-fests that have run riot in Hollywood. If the first 'Saw' was a disturbing testament to how far individuals can go if their emotions are willing, the rest have just capitalized and ruined a good thing. And don't get me started on the torture-porn/ unnecessary nudity-filled films such as 'Hostel'.
Suffice to say I was, therefore, looking forward to 'The Woman in Black'. The trailers looked intriguing. I haven't seen the first film adaptation nor have I read the book by Susan Hill. It seems to be quite a classic in England, so there appeared to be some anxiety concerning this new rendition.With none of those biases in mind, I went to watch my first horror film in... four years. The film had been running several weeks, but the hall filled up quite a lot, and interestingly, it looked to me like the majority of the audience were women.
The first scene of the film is quite shocking. You can't help but turn to your partner and go, 'Eh! Why?' An effective use of the Zeigarnik effect, I would say.
We then move on to the title credits. Now, I personally don't care for title credits, as I feel that considering the volume of promos, trailers, posters, interviews and 'exclusive clips' on display before a film even reaches the theatre, the sheer anticipation and surprise that title credits would have evoked in audience members of yore is completely absent today. However, this film uses the credit sequence to its advantage. Because most of us are not looking at the text anyway, our eyes are drawn to the scenes filmed in sepia in the background. These scenes tell a sad story of the man who will eventually become our protagonist, Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe).
Kipps, a young father and lawyer is asked to settle the documents of a recently deceased woman in a little village. Kipps is at this moment in dire straits (financially and emotionally) and readily takes on the assignment. He heads to the village with instructions for his son and the nanny to follow a few days later.
The scene is already set for what's to come. A reluctant man, on his own, travelling to a faraway place. The town itself looks ominous in the rain, in the dark and quiet when Kipps finally arrives. To top it all, the guesthouse where his office has booked him a room informs him that they have no vacancies for him. The owner's wife takes pity on him and lends him the attic to stay in.
Kipps soon makes his way to the house - this is done with great difficulty as no one is willing to drive up there. Once there, Kipps is virtually trapped for several hours, as a high tide floods the driveway, cutting off his only route to civilization.
Kipps trawls through papers in the house, finding out more about the family as he goes along. On his first visit he sees the shadowy figure of a woman dressed in mourning attire. His subsequent visits to and from the village to the house make more truths known to him - a lot of the children in the village have died over the years, and always in unnatural circumstances. Once the villagers find out that he has seen the woman in black they become afraid and attempt to get him to leave.
His only friend in the village is Daily (Ciaran Hinds), a kindly gentleman who invites him to his lavish home to meet with his wife (Janet McTeer). Kipps is informed that the Dailys' son died as a child, and it becomes evident during the course of the evening that Mrs. Daily has not coped well with the death.
Trouble starts when a child dies in Kipps' arms. The villagers become panic-stricken, blaming him for bringing the woman in black's curses back on the village. This curious mystery engulfs Kipps, as he spends more time in the house and discovers some very dark secrets about the family.
This film is in every way an old-fashioned, old-school horror. It's got all the chills and thrills of its genre. The audience is privy to all the spooks that our protagonist never gets to see. The camera framing is done so the eye constantly darts away from the foreground, in anticipation (and sometimes fear) of what lies or will emerge in the background. And just when you get used to that, the director turns it on its head, so the eye doesn't know where to look.
What I enjoyed most was that the thrills weren't cheap thrills. No, they all made sense. You didn't walk away wondering what that apparition was. Also, oddly enough, the director didn't always use the music to his advantage. There was one scene, and it sticks with me because of its uniqueness, where the apparition is revealed to the audience, but the thundering drums are played only when the protagonist turns around, sees the ghost, and the camera is focused on him. I still don't know if this was an error, or it was done on purpose. Interesting.
Another essential component that this film contained was a coherent storyline and plot. I think that is the advantage of adapting a written work. The director and producers aren't just pandering to some blood-thirsty, adrenaline-junkies.
The acting lends itself well to the film. Hinds and McTeer, despite little screen time, are believable in their respective roles. Credit must also go to Radcliffe. I was skeptical, to say the least, when I saw that he was attached to this film, and the first shot of him made me think I was still watching Harry Potter. But that impression didn't last long. He comes into his own from the very first scene. His acting isn't over-the-top, in fact, his Kipps is a man of subtle emotions and expressions. Even when he sees the horrors surrounding him, he emotes only a little, revealing that many of his emotions are virtually dead.
Radcliffe, I believe, is probably the luckiest of the Harry Potter main cast. Having played a character hidden behind horn-rimmed glasses ensures that the audience don't easily mistake his future characters to be Potter.
Of course, the cinematography lends itself fantastically to the ominous atmosphere. The palette is bleak, grey and foggy - the house (which looked awfully familiar to me) looked much like it walked out of most of our nightmares.
Director James Watkins of horrifying 'Eden Lake' fame certainly seems to have wanted this project. It is crisply made, without any superfluous scenes or dialogues. There aren't any red herrings either (which usually ruins films for me). It's an investigative storyline based in a supernatural setting. Quite a combo, that. He successfully has the audience on the edge of their seats, but at the same time, introduces a brief lull in the horror to not only further the story but to also give the audience a welcome break. At that point (about three-quarters through) I felt that if the scares continued, the audience would begin suffering from 'scare fatigue' (I made that one up) - simply put, the audience were so tense and afraid of what would appear next that much of the enjoyment of the film would have disappeared had the scares gone on. A brilliant judgement call by the director.
The one aspect of the film I didn't like was the ending. The film ended a couple of scenes too late, I felt. How faithful it is to the original story, I do not know, but considering this is the 21st century, unhappy or disturbing endings leave a greater impact. But leaving that aside, I think the ending does explain, in a most tenuous way, the motivations of Kipps. Without giving much away, it vindicates his own actions when dealing with the woman in black.
This film is ideal for large groups of friends, like the groups that surrounded us. We had some real squealers in the audience, and that made the atmosphere in the hall that much more fun and friendly. There are lots of scares and jump-out-of-your-seat moments to enjoy. For intelligent horror lovers, this is a true gift.
Comments