The big question on my mind going into the movie was: will Paranormal Activity 3 live up to the precedent set by the first two entries in this film series? To get myself in the mood beforehand, I pulled up my reviews of Paranormal Activity and Paranormal Activity 2 for a read-through. At the risk of sounding immodest, both of those reviews are really good, and probably two of the best reviews I've ever written. So in addition to hoping PA3 would live up to to its predecessors, I had the additional pressure of writing a review of it that would do its predecessors justice.
For better or worse, the pressure is off. I can say two things about Paranormal Activity 3. It was a good, scary, fun movie. Yet it didn't feel quite as satisfying as the previous two Paranormal Activities. And I may be able to guess at the reasons, but I can't quite put my finger on exactly why that is. Though the scares are still effective in the same way they've always been, perhaps the edge has been blunted and the novelty worn off. Then again, I can't rule out the possibility that something in the way the story itself was put together missed the mark in a subtle but significant way.
Perhaps it's that Paranormal Activity has become more of a phenomenon than an experience. As before, audience reactions in the theater were uncharacteristically (judging by the standards of your average movie experience) enthusiastic. But though there were lots of screams, I've become more skeptical than ever that they were genuine. It's very possible that these people were genuinely scared, but it seems to me that PA has become that movie that comes out around Halloween that you go to with your friends to have a good time and scream your head off. I mean, the advertisements certainly butter you up to the point that anything less than audience hysteria would be a letdown. And also in addition to that, while there were a lot of funny scenes in PA3 (more, I think, than in the previous titles), there was perhaps more laughing (and a little bit of talking) than was probably appropriate.
And the movie itself? Let's talk spoilers.
PA3 is a prequel. It fleshes out Katie (from the first one)'s initial encounter with the demonic spirit that haunts her, during her childhood. It's her sister who has taken this spirit on (in time-worn cliche fashion) as an apparently imaginary friend named Toby. But we know he's much more than that. In the hyped-up climax to the film (which threw me off because I was expecting a house fire that the movie never delivered), we discover that Katie's grandmother is a member of a witches' coven who has, apparently, summoned this demonic spirit upon the family, and it has chosen Katie's sister to be its "bride", ostensibly for the purpose of producing a male child (judging from the explanation we got in PA2 - though for what reason I don't know or recall) - though not in the exciting way; it appears the demon is content to wait it out, perhaps because his own "seed" is not compatible with humans.
Frankly, I think the imaginary friend thing - as creepy as the concept of a child befriending a ghost is (it's been done better in differently styled films) - kind of endears the demon to the family in a way that, while it's still a frightening and clearly dangerous entity, makes it slightly less of an unknown threat. Moreover - and I'm not alone in thinking this - the addition of the witches' coven subplot, while a fun theme to play with, seems to lessen the demon's impact even further, almost lowering it to the level of a pet (albeit a supernatural and deadly one) at the beck and call of very human (if magickal) owners.
Spoilers begone! I cast you out!
If you ask me, it seems like we're getting more exposition to fill out the story (though with as many new questions as answers). And you know what? It makes for a fuller story. We get lots of humor, and lots of action, and it begins to feel a little bit more like all the other (scary) movies that are out there. Paranormal Activity was effective because it was so unique. Paranormal Activity 2 built upon that. PA3 builds further, and while I can't say that the progress it makes is a bad thing (I think the use of PA-type scares in more mainstream movies could be a very fruitful partnership), it has the side effect of making it feel less special, less groundbreaking, and while still quite scary, less spine-tinglingly terrifying.
At least while watching it. As the scenes flood back into memory as I sit here writing this, the fear is amplified, and I remember how I felt after the first two Paranormal Activities, and I become afraid to go to bed and shut off the lights. If PA3 falls short of its goals, confusing as much as it explains (a situation exacerbated by the intentionally misleading trailer), it still remains an effective entry in the series. And it would seem that there is nothing stopping the studio from continuing that series for at least another year, if not longer. I am very excited to see both more films in this vein, as well as to explore further the increasingly convoluted and inconsistent plot of this series. I only hope that the series doesn't (continue to?) suffer from profit-inspired degradation.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Sunday, October 23, 2011
The Walking Dead: Season 2 Episode 2 (Bloodletting)
Spoiler Warning!
In episode 2 of the second season of The Walking Dead, Rick races his unconscious son Carl back to the farm where the man who accidentally shot him lives. Luckily (in a relative sense), there is a doctor living on the farm, and there is a chance that Carl may survive. But not without extra medical supplies that need to be recovered from a nearby zombie-infested high school.
One of the real strengths of this series is, as I've said before, how much it focuses on the real human drama at the heart of the zombie apocalypse. We've seen, time and again, the horror of a zombie onslaught - and this series certainly dishes them out - but what other titles don't do as much of is show just how much of an indirect effect the zombie apocalypse has on people. It shows the tension that exists among the survivors even when the zombies aren't just around the corner.
The doctor on the farm has his own, tempered philosophy on the zombie apocalypse, that I thought was rather intriguing. He compares it to the AIDS epidemic, and while this is a problem on a whole different order of magnitude, one can imagine the drastic effect that the black plague had on civilization in the middle ages. Many died, and prospects must have been very bleak to those living through it, but society pulled through, and we came out the back end stronger for it. This perspective, above all, seems to suggest hope for mankind. Yet there is still not much hope for any one man having to endure the struggles in the meantime.
In this episode we can really see Rick's strength of resolve breaking down. He's been so strong so far, always knowing the right thing to do (if not without self-doubt), and always having the strength to do it. But now, with the life of his son on the line, he seems to be losing it. Shane really steps in here and for once, his dominance works well for the good of the group in his support of Rick, and his go-to attitude when it comes to recovering much-needed medical supplies from a dangerous area. Rick, on the other hand, doesn't seem to know how to sit and wait in a crisis - even when it's the one thing he can do to help the most. You'd almost begin to think that his instinctive jump to action is as much a way of running from his problems than dealing with them. He can help others in their times of crisis, but he can't seem to take care of himself when he's the one who stands to lose so much.
I can't wait to see what happens next!
In episode 2 of the second season of The Walking Dead, Rick races his unconscious son Carl back to the farm where the man who accidentally shot him lives. Luckily (in a relative sense), there is a doctor living on the farm, and there is a chance that Carl may survive. But not without extra medical supplies that need to be recovered from a nearby zombie-infested high school.
One of the real strengths of this series is, as I've said before, how much it focuses on the real human drama at the heart of the zombie apocalypse. We've seen, time and again, the horror of a zombie onslaught - and this series certainly dishes them out - but what other titles don't do as much of is show just how much of an indirect effect the zombie apocalypse has on people. It shows the tension that exists among the survivors even when the zombies aren't just around the corner.
The doctor on the farm has his own, tempered philosophy on the zombie apocalypse, that I thought was rather intriguing. He compares it to the AIDS epidemic, and while this is a problem on a whole different order of magnitude, one can imagine the drastic effect that the black plague had on civilization in the middle ages. Many died, and prospects must have been very bleak to those living through it, but society pulled through, and we came out the back end stronger for it. This perspective, above all, seems to suggest hope for mankind. Yet there is still not much hope for any one man having to endure the struggles in the meantime.
In this episode we can really see Rick's strength of resolve breaking down. He's been so strong so far, always knowing the right thing to do (if not without self-doubt), and always having the strength to do it. But now, with the life of his son on the line, he seems to be losing it. Shane really steps in here and for once, his dominance works well for the good of the group in his support of Rick, and his go-to attitude when it comes to recovering much-needed medical supplies from a dangerous area. Rick, on the other hand, doesn't seem to know how to sit and wait in a crisis - even when it's the one thing he can do to help the most. You'd almost begin to think that his instinctive jump to action is as much a way of running from his problems than dealing with them. He can help others in their times of crisis, but he can't seem to take care of himself when he's the one who stands to lose so much.
I can't wait to see what happens next!
Friday, October 21, 2011
Stigmata (1999)
Spoiler Warning - I'm gonna go ahead and spoil the whole plot of the movie, because that's what's really worth talking about.
Stigmata is a pretty effective dramatic thriller, with a religious theme, but what's so fascinating about it is the premise. Allow me to outline the plot. A priest discovers a new gospel, never before found, which, in the process of translation, he determines are the words of Jesus himself, spoken on the night of the Last Supper. However, instead of rejoicing at this discovery, the Vatican excommunicates the priest and tries to cover up the existence of the Gospel of Jesus. As it turns out, the church will let nothing interfere with their authority - not even God himself.
In the words of Jesus: "the Kingdom of God is inside you, and all around you, not in mansions of wood and stone."
So when the offending priest dies, his spirit travels across the world (attached to the priest's rosary, nicked from his coffin by an enterprising young thief), and possesses a young woman who lives in what I think is supposed to be Pittsburgh (it looks nothing like Pittsburgh). And our primary protagonist, other than this young woman, a self-described atheist, who begins to experience the stigmata - a souvenir from the excommunicated priest whose soul inhabits her body - is another priest who is rather more of a scientist, that goes around on the Vatican's orders, investigating claims of miracles. But his skepticism and desire for the truth will pit him against the church in the end.
Apparently, the basic story (of the gospel, not the possessed woman experiencing stigmata) is based on true events, surrounding the Gospel of Thomas, which was alleged to be closest to the words of Jesus himself, and is not officially recognized by the Vatican. Of course, the truth of any matters regarding religion is muddy at best, but the idea itself I find intriguing - the idea that the words of Jesus himself contradict the entire foundation of the church that was greedily enacted in his name. That the true spiritual path that Jesus recommended not only does not demand the presence of the church, but is actively hampered by it (to say nothing of its corruption). Now that's a religious message I can get behind.
Stigmata is a pretty effective dramatic thriller, with a religious theme, but what's so fascinating about it is the premise. Allow me to outline the plot. A priest discovers a new gospel, never before found, which, in the process of translation, he determines are the words of Jesus himself, spoken on the night of the Last Supper. However, instead of rejoicing at this discovery, the Vatican excommunicates the priest and tries to cover up the existence of the Gospel of Jesus. As it turns out, the church will let nothing interfere with their authority - not even God himself.
In the words of Jesus: "the Kingdom of God is inside you, and all around you, not in mansions of wood and stone."
So when the offending priest dies, his spirit travels across the world (attached to the priest's rosary, nicked from his coffin by an enterprising young thief), and possesses a young woman who lives in what I think is supposed to be Pittsburgh (it looks nothing like Pittsburgh). And our primary protagonist, other than this young woman, a self-described atheist, who begins to experience the stigmata - a souvenir from the excommunicated priest whose soul inhabits her body - is another priest who is rather more of a scientist, that goes around on the Vatican's orders, investigating claims of miracles. But his skepticism and desire for the truth will pit him against the church in the end.
Apparently, the basic story (of the gospel, not the possessed woman experiencing stigmata) is based on true events, surrounding the Gospel of Thomas, which was alleged to be closest to the words of Jesus himself, and is not officially recognized by the Vatican. Of course, the truth of any matters regarding religion is muddy at best, but the idea itself I find intriguing - the idea that the words of Jesus himself contradict the entire foundation of the church that was greedily enacted in his name. That the true spiritual path that Jesus recommended not only does not demand the presence of the church, but is actively hampered by it (to say nothing of its corruption). Now that's a religious message I can get behind.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Diary of the Dead (2007)
In Diary of the Dead, zombie movie king George Romero tackles the zombie apocalypse - again - this time in a cinéma vérité/found footage style. As an established film director, Romero makes good use of the format, casting the main characters as film students working on a low budget, independent horror film of their own, when the zombie outbreak occurs, and they find themselves in the perfect position to record the decline of modern civilization. As film students, they know how to use cameras, and we actually get multiple angles of view in many scenes, as well as some on-the-fly editing performed on laptops before their videos are uploaded to youtube (as long as the server lasts) for the world to see.
The one major flaw of this film, however - other than the amateur acting - is that it beats you over the head with its social commentary. Romero's zombie films have always been a social commentary - most notably on the effects of consumerism - but in the past the commentary was subtle. It was something you only thought about after you watched the movie - it wasn't necessarily obvious during viewing, and it certainly didn't distract you from enjoying the action and horror. But here, in Diary of the Dead, we are bludgeoned with it - and the bulk of it isn't even directly related to the zombies, from what I could tell.
The worst of it was the commentary on how people "hide" behind their cameras to distance themselves from the world. It's a valid concept, and worth exploring, but the way the film approached it was too preachy. It seems a relic of a bygone era, the pre-internet age that the older generations are still trapped in. They have a hard time adapting to the new, digital world. As a photographer, I am frankly insulted when somebody suggests that standing behind my camera causes me to miss out on experiencing life. In a sense, it's absolutely true, but that view completely ignores all the good that standing behind a camera can accomplish - to say nothing of the fact that some people are more suited to be behind the camera than in front of it, and that that isn't a bad thing or a character flaw or whatever. We need all kinds of people in this world. Different ones will have different roles, and we shouldn't disparage the ones who choose to live (and record) life differently than we do.
There are, however, some potentially clever devices in use here. Like how the zombies so frequently avoid the man holding the camera, as if he weren't actually there. And then there is the mirroring of the opening scene towards the end, which I thought was pretty amusing to see. On the whole, though, the film lacks the "oomph" of Romero's classic Dead trilogy, and as I said, the commentary has a tendency to leave you rolling your eyes. It's certainly worth a look if you're into these kinds of films (zombie films, found footage films, or films that comment on modern society), but if you're looking for a good zombie movie, I would recommend instead Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Day of the Dead.
The one major flaw of this film, however - other than the amateur acting - is that it beats you over the head with its social commentary. Romero's zombie films have always been a social commentary - most notably on the effects of consumerism - but in the past the commentary was subtle. It was something you only thought about after you watched the movie - it wasn't necessarily obvious during viewing, and it certainly didn't distract you from enjoying the action and horror. But here, in Diary of the Dead, we are bludgeoned with it - and the bulk of it isn't even directly related to the zombies, from what I could tell.
The worst of it was the commentary on how people "hide" behind their cameras to distance themselves from the world. It's a valid concept, and worth exploring, but the way the film approached it was too preachy. It seems a relic of a bygone era, the pre-internet age that the older generations are still trapped in. They have a hard time adapting to the new, digital world. As a photographer, I am frankly insulted when somebody suggests that standing behind my camera causes me to miss out on experiencing life. In a sense, it's absolutely true, but that view completely ignores all the good that standing behind a camera can accomplish - to say nothing of the fact that some people are more suited to be behind the camera than in front of it, and that that isn't a bad thing or a character flaw or whatever. We need all kinds of people in this world. Different ones will have different roles, and we shouldn't disparage the ones who choose to live (and record) life differently than we do.
There are, however, some potentially clever devices in use here. Like how the zombies so frequently avoid the man holding the camera, as if he weren't actually there. And then there is the mirroring of the opening scene towards the end, which I thought was pretty amusing to see. On the whole, though, the film lacks the "oomph" of Romero's classic Dead trilogy, and as I said, the commentary has a tendency to leave you rolling your eyes. It's certainly worth a look if you're into these kinds of films (zombie films, found footage films, or films that comment on modern society), but if you're looking for a good zombie movie, I would recommend instead Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Day of the Dead.
Notes on The Order of the Phoenix (book version)
Warning: Harry Potter spoilers!
* When Harry was waiting over the summer for news of Voldemort's return, it reminded me of what it was like after 9/11, when we all (or at least I) thought World War III was coming, and then nothing really happened.
* I am in love with Nymphadora Tonks' special ability. I would kill to be a metamorphmagus. I used to think that if I could have one magical item or ability from Harry Potter, I'd take an Invisibility Cloak; but upon further reflection, I couldn't pass up the opportunity to be able to willfully change my appearance.
* I love how Hogwarts descends into chaos after Umbridge ousts Dumbledore. It just goes to show, you can only push so far, before the oppressed begin to push back - when the cost of obedience outweighs the fear of punishment. It's just a shame it takes that long, and that it's only effective when enough people are willing to fight back that they can't be easily stifled and singled out.
* I can't believe Umbridge was prepared to use the Cruciatus Curse on Harry! I was convinced at that point that I would view Umbridge as a Dark Wizard (Dark Witch?) - even if in no way affiliated with Voldemort. But then later, when even Harry used the Cruciatus Curse in his anger after Sirius was killed...I figured, as much as I still hate Umbridge, I have to at least give her the benefit of that doubt, else I'd have to consider Harry a Dark Wizard too.
* I was thinking that Voldemort must have been allowing the Ministry of Magic to go about its business, because out of coincidence, it happened to be working in his favor. Not believing the rumors of Voldemort's return meant that the Ministry was helping the Dark Lord to stay hidden and unknown. Plus, their meddling with Hogwarts was directly undermining Dumbledore's authority. But Voldemort was so focused on getting the prophecy, and scared to face down the Ministry head on in the end, that I guess maybe it wasn't necessarily part of his strategy, but just a coincidence in his favor.
* Finally, evidence that Dumbledore is not infallible, even if it has nothing to do with his trusting Snape - and I could see it all along:
"Youth cannot know how age thinks and feels. But old men are guilty if they forget what it was to be young..."
It's obvious that Dumbledore's plan wasn't working re: getting Harry to learn Occlumency. His mistake - a mistake that too many make too frequently - was to try to control another person's behavior, believing that lying to (or withholding information from) them is the best way to trick them into following your path. In this case, it was Dumbledore tricking Harry into learning Occlumency, when Harry's instinct was to resist those lessons. How could he be so blind as to not see that being honest and forthright with Harry was the best (indeed only) way to accomplish what must be done? But yes, it was his love and protective instinct that precluded him from being able to do it.
It's like in Don't Be Afraid of the Dark. The old househand warns the new occupants not to open the bricked-in fireplace. He doesn't tell them why, apparently not realizing that their curiosity (and lack of a good reason) would only make them more eager to open up the fireplace and see what's inside. Maybe they wouldn't have believed him if he told them there were evil murderous spirits inside, but it couldn't have hurt their chances of opening up the fireplace against his wishes.
I'm getting diverted, but it's the same concept. Trying to trick someone into behaving a certain way by lying to them or withholding important information, instead of being honest and open and giving them the opportunity to choose to do the right thing, with full knowledge. I really thought Dumbledore of all people was better than that. Not to give the wrong impression, I still respect him and all that - and indeed, his blunder makes for a great example. And after all, he is aware of his mistake and regretful of it like few would be.
* Snape came off pretty pathetically in the third book. In this book, it's Sirius who comes off pretty pathetic, ignoring his tragic demise. Cooped up in his old house that whole time, eager to be reckless... It's a shame his hands were tied and he couldn't go out and be more of a hero.
* On a related note, James Potter doesn't come off very well via Snape's memory. Not very well at all. Of course, it's a little unfair to judge his character based on what is Snape's worst memory (or one of them), and quite possibly one of James' least proud moments in his life. We all have bad moments like that, when we do things we are not proud of, and it would be grossly unjust to judge a person's character based entirely on one of those moments. Still, James' arrogance does not come off well at all.
* Still looking forward to learning more about Snape's past, and his motivations, in the last two books.
* I was kind of underwhelmed to learn that Hermione's patronus is an otter. What's so great about otters? It's kind of unremarkable. On the other hand, it's only one letter shy of "Potter", so maybe it's an indication that Hermione truly does belong with Harry. :3
* I was relieved when Harry finally did his interview and told his story to the wizarding world. I really felt, all along, that the majority of the people sneering at him didn't necessarily disbelieve his claim about Voldemort's return, or believe the things the papers were saying about him. I think they just wanted to hear his story, to know just what happened, before coming to any kind of conclusion. Granted, I know it's not easy for Harry to talk about it, but I think he should have at least understood that - that they just needed to know more.
* In this book, one of the characters asks Hermione the question I've been dying to ask her - why isn't she in Ravenclaw? Predictable answer - the Sorting Hat considered it before finally putting her in Gryffindor - but it's nice to actually hear that confirmation that Hermione is total Ravenclaw material. Of course, given Cho and her friend's behavior, that may indicate the difference between Ravenclaw and Gryffindor, with an emphasis on Gryffindor's honor.
* When Harry was waiting over the summer for news of Voldemort's return, it reminded me of what it was like after 9/11, when we all (or at least I) thought World War III was coming, and then nothing really happened.
* I am in love with Nymphadora Tonks' special ability. I would kill to be a metamorphmagus. I used to think that if I could have one magical item or ability from Harry Potter, I'd take an Invisibility Cloak; but upon further reflection, I couldn't pass up the opportunity to be able to willfully change my appearance.
* I love how Hogwarts descends into chaos after Umbridge ousts Dumbledore. It just goes to show, you can only push so far, before the oppressed begin to push back - when the cost of obedience outweighs the fear of punishment. It's just a shame it takes that long, and that it's only effective when enough people are willing to fight back that they can't be easily stifled and singled out.
* I can't believe Umbridge was prepared to use the Cruciatus Curse on Harry! I was convinced at that point that I would view Umbridge as a Dark Wizard (Dark Witch?) - even if in no way affiliated with Voldemort. But then later, when even Harry used the Cruciatus Curse in his anger after Sirius was killed...I figured, as much as I still hate Umbridge, I have to at least give her the benefit of that doubt, else I'd have to consider Harry a Dark Wizard too.
* I was thinking that Voldemort must have been allowing the Ministry of Magic to go about its business, because out of coincidence, it happened to be working in his favor. Not believing the rumors of Voldemort's return meant that the Ministry was helping the Dark Lord to stay hidden and unknown. Plus, their meddling with Hogwarts was directly undermining Dumbledore's authority. But Voldemort was so focused on getting the prophecy, and scared to face down the Ministry head on in the end, that I guess maybe it wasn't necessarily part of his strategy, but just a coincidence in his favor.
* Finally, evidence that Dumbledore is not infallible, even if it has nothing to do with his trusting Snape - and I could see it all along:
"Youth cannot know how age thinks and feels. But old men are guilty if they forget what it was to be young..."
It's obvious that Dumbledore's plan wasn't working re: getting Harry to learn Occlumency. His mistake - a mistake that too many make too frequently - was to try to control another person's behavior, believing that lying to (or withholding information from) them is the best way to trick them into following your path. In this case, it was Dumbledore tricking Harry into learning Occlumency, when Harry's instinct was to resist those lessons. How could he be so blind as to not see that being honest and forthright with Harry was the best (indeed only) way to accomplish what must be done? But yes, it was his love and protective instinct that precluded him from being able to do it.
It's like in Don't Be Afraid of the Dark. The old househand warns the new occupants not to open the bricked-in fireplace. He doesn't tell them why, apparently not realizing that their curiosity (and lack of a good reason) would only make them more eager to open up the fireplace and see what's inside. Maybe they wouldn't have believed him if he told them there were evil murderous spirits inside, but it couldn't have hurt their chances of opening up the fireplace against his wishes.
I'm getting diverted, but it's the same concept. Trying to trick someone into behaving a certain way by lying to them or withholding important information, instead of being honest and open and giving them the opportunity to choose to do the right thing, with full knowledge. I really thought Dumbledore of all people was better than that. Not to give the wrong impression, I still respect him and all that - and indeed, his blunder makes for a great example. And after all, he is aware of his mistake and regretful of it like few would be.
* Snape came off pretty pathetically in the third book. In this book, it's Sirius who comes off pretty pathetic, ignoring his tragic demise. Cooped up in his old house that whole time, eager to be reckless... It's a shame his hands were tied and he couldn't go out and be more of a hero.
* On a related note, James Potter doesn't come off very well via Snape's memory. Not very well at all. Of course, it's a little unfair to judge his character based on what is Snape's worst memory (or one of them), and quite possibly one of James' least proud moments in his life. We all have bad moments like that, when we do things we are not proud of, and it would be grossly unjust to judge a person's character based entirely on one of those moments. Still, James' arrogance does not come off well at all.
* Still looking forward to learning more about Snape's past, and his motivations, in the last two books.
* I was kind of underwhelmed to learn that Hermione's patronus is an otter. What's so great about otters? It's kind of unremarkable. On the other hand, it's only one letter shy of "Potter", so maybe it's an indication that Hermione truly does belong with Harry. :3
* I was relieved when Harry finally did his interview and told his story to the wizarding world. I really felt, all along, that the majority of the people sneering at him didn't necessarily disbelieve his claim about Voldemort's return, or believe the things the papers were saying about him. I think they just wanted to hear his story, to know just what happened, before coming to any kind of conclusion. Granted, I know it's not easy for Harry to talk about it, but I think he should have at least understood that - that they just needed to know more.
* In this book, one of the characters asks Hermione the question I've been dying to ask her - why isn't she in Ravenclaw? Predictable answer - the Sorting Hat considered it before finally putting her in Gryffindor - but it's nice to actually hear that confirmation that Hermione is total Ravenclaw material. Of course, given Cho and her friend's behavior, that may indicate the difference between Ravenclaw and Gryffindor, with an emphasis on Gryffindor's honor.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)
Rather than being simply another exorcism movie, The Exorcism of Emily Rose puts a unique twist on the story by marrying it to a courtroom drama. The story actually begins immediately following Emily Rose's death, at which point the priest who administered the failed exorcism, Father Moore, is charged with negligent homicide (not an unbelievable outcome, considering modern attitudes toward demonic possession). The story then follows the court case, as the truth behind Emily's ordeal is told, one piece at a time.
I enjoy a good exorcism story, and I think this was a very clever way of presenting the story from a new perspective, without changing the basic formula. However, where this film stumbles is in its attempt to enact a war of facts vs. beliefs in the courtroom. Instead of a situation of "was this girl really possessed or not?", it's more "can we convince the jury that this girl was really possessed or not?", because the narrative unambiguously takes the side of the defense. We, the viewer, are shown all the supernatural goings on that the jury is not privy to. And if there's one thing that corroborates the supernatural explanation, it's that the phenomenon seems to follow those that get involved in the case, rather than sticking to the [potentially psychologically deluded] possessee.
There's a great story to be told here (closer to the true story the film was based on) about the damage that dangerous religious beliefs can cause - essentially, the prosecution's argument, which seeks to charge the priest with negligent homicide, for emphasizing spiritual over medical treatment for the girl's condition (a theme that The Last Exorcism touches on, though it ultimately has a different purpose) - but this film shies away from that in favor of telling a traditional supernatural exorcism story. Thus, it manages to be entertaining, but misses an opportunity to be truly groundbreaking. There was, however, another film based on those true events - a film called Requiem - and I am going to have to try to get my hands on it.
(And now for some spoiler stuff, for those who have seen the movie:)
When the evidence comes out that Emily Rose saw her experience as an opportunity (with help from Father Moore's testimony) to give the world evidence of the spiritual realm (with the Virgin Mary's blessing), I think the case lost a lot of credibility. For one thing, it showed that Emily had a motive to convince people that her demonic possession was real - thus presenting the possibility that she may have been willing to fake it. Also, if we are to take her written statement at face value, it begs the question of why Mary would be willing to have an innocent, faithful girl suffer when there are much better, less sacrificial ways to convince the mortal world that the spirit realm exists.
I also wonder at how when the devil tends to meddle in the affairs of men, there's plenty of evidence, whereas God's touch is so subtle as to be imperceptible. Of course, believers arguments' tend toward the thought that proof of the existence of the devil will imply existence of God - but still, why the hell does God not just provide some evidence himself? And anyway, the whole ordeal is moot, because in the end, not even the agnostic defense attorney manages to be convinced in her faith by the end of the movie. I have to believe that there are far more effective methods at God's disposal to convince people of his existence...
(end spoilers)
I'd like also to mention that it didn't skip my notice that the prosecution emphasizes that the victim, Emily Rose, was a "young girl", as is often the case with exorcism episodes. However, the fact is, she was a young woman - a university student. Of course, emphasizing her innocence and vulnerability plays into the prosecution's hand, given that they're trying to convict the man allegedly responsible for letting her die. And I certainly couldn't fault the devil for choosing to pick on such helpless, sympathetic victims - but I think he, at least, would have the ability to see through man's self-deception with regards to treating young adults as if they were still children.
I enjoy a good exorcism story, and I think this was a very clever way of presenting the story from a new perspective, without changing the basic formula. However, where this film stumbles is in its attempt to enact a war of facts vs. beliefs in the courtroom. Instead of a situation of "was this girl really possessed or not?", it's more "can we convince the jury that this girl was really possessed or not?", because the narrative unambiguously takes the side of the defense. We, the viewer, are shown all the supernatural goings on that the jury is not privy to. And if there's one thing that corroborates the supernatural explanation, it's that the phenomenon seems to follow those that get involved in the case, rather than sticking to the [potentially psychologically deluded] possessee.
There's a great story to be told here (closer to the true story the film was based on) about the damage that dangerous religious beliefs can cause - essentially, the prosecution's argument, which seeks to charge the priest with negligent homicide, for emphasizing spiritual over medical treatment for the girl's condition (a theme that The Last Exorcism touches on, though it ultimately has a different purpose) - but this film shies away from that in favor of telling a traditional supernatural exorcism story. Thus, it manages to be entertaining, but misses an opportunity to be truly groundbreaking. There was, however, another film based on those true events - a film called Requiem - and I am going to have to try to get my hands on it.
(And now for some spoiler stuff, for those who have seen the movie:)
When the evidence comes out that Emily Rose saw her experience as an opportunity (with help from Father Moore's testimony) to give the world evidence of the spiritual realm (with the Virgin Mary's blessing), I think the case lost a lot of credibility. For one thing, it showed that Emily had a motive to convince people that her demonic possession was real - thus presenting the possibility that she may have been willing to fake it. Also, if we are to take her written statement at face value, it begs the question of why Mary would be willing to have an innocent, faithful girl suffer when there are much better, less sacrificial ways to convince the mortal world that the spirit realm exists.
I also wonder at how when the devil tends to meddle in the affairs of men, there's plenty of evidence, whereas God's touch is so subtle as to be imperceptible. Of course, believers arguments' tend toward the thought that proof of the existence of the devil will imply existence of God - but still, why the hell does God not just provide some evidence himself? And anyway, the whole ordeal is moot, because in the end, not even the agnostic defense attorney manages to be convinced in her faith by the end of the movie. I have to believe that there are far more effective methods at God's disposal to convince people of his existence...
(end spoilers)
I'd like also to mention that it didn't skip my notice that the prosecution emphasizes that the victim, Emily Rose, was a "young girl", as is often the case with exorcism episodes. However, the fact is, she was a young woman - a university student. Of course, emphasizing her innocence and vulnerability plays into the prosecution's hand, given that they're trying to convict the man allegedly responsible for letting her die. And I certainly couldn't fault the devil for choosing to pick on such helpless, sympathetic victims - but I think he, at least, would have the ability to see through man's self-deception with regards to treating young adults as if they were still children.
Monday, October 17, 2011
The Funhouse (1981)
The Funhouse is a fun little slasher flick from the [early] eighties, directed by Tobe Hooper, who you might know as the man who brought us The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. It's not as impressive, terrifying, or as influential as that earlier film, but it manages to be effectively entertaining. I would say that it's in the wave of slasher films that comes after the genre-defining originals (of which TCM was the shining beacon, preceding even John Carpenter's Halloween), whose purpose is more entertainment than innovation, yet before the later wave in which the slasher formula became tired and cliche. Indeed, The Funhouse is not free of slasher cliches, but it manages to make them genuinely interesting, in its freshness (for its time).
The film opens with a truly inspired scene, that the rest of the movie hardly even manages to live up to. Critics will be quick to point out that it's an homage to the opening scene in Halloween, as well as the infamous shower scene from Psycho, but despite being derivative, I found it to be an interesting and highly effective twist on both those themes, while being enormously entertaining. After that scene, I was immediately hooked on the movie.
The rest of it changes gears slightly, as a group of four teenagers on a double date visit the local carnival, and make the very ill-informed decision (considering the carnival's prior newsworthy reputation) to sneak into the funhouse ride and stay over for a night of illicit lovemaking. But they end up unintentionally spying on a terrible accident involving one of the (horribly mutated) carnival freaks and his call girl. If anything, carnies stick by their own kind, and when they find out some kids could get in the way of their cover-up story, the murderous rampage begins.
The flashing lights, spooky sounds, and creepy decorations inside the funhouse ride contribute to a chaotic and distracting atmosphere as the teens try desperately to find a way out of the ride before the carny and his freak get to them (and you can guess how that will turn out). I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the movie Dark Ride (from After Dark's first year of Horrorfest) was a spiritual successor to this film. The chase may drag on a bit towards the end, and the mutant freak, while highly disturbing at first sight, loses its creepiness factor the more you look at him. But apart from that, The Funhouse is a quality classic slasher flick, that I would recommend to those looking beyond the first tier pinnacle of slasher titles.
The film opens with a truly inspired scene, that the rest of the movie hardly even manages to live up to. Critics will be quick to point out that it's an homage to the opening scene in Halloween, as well as the infamous shower scene from Psycho, but despite being derivative, I found it to be an interesting and highly effective twist on both those themes, while being enormously entertaining. After that scene, I was immediately hooked on the movie.
The rest of it changes gears slightly, as a group of four teenagers on a double date visit the local carnival, and make the very ill-informed decision (considering the carnival's prior newsworthy reputation) to sneak into the funhouse ride and stay over for a night of illicit lovemaking. But they end up unintentionally spying on a terrible accident involving one of the (horribly mutated) carnival freaks and his call girl. If anything, carnies stick by their own kind, and when they find out some kids could get in the way of their cover-up story, the murderous rampage begins.
The flashing lights, spooky sounds, and creepy decorations inside the funhouse ride contribute to a chaotic and distracting atmosphere as the teens try desperately to find a way out of the ride before the carny and his freak get to them (and you can guess how that will turn out). I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the movie Dark Ride (from After Dark's first year of Horrorfest) was a spiritual successor to this film. The chase may drag on a bit towards the end, and the mutant freak, while highly disturbing at first sight, loses its creepiness factor the more you look at him. But apart from that, The Funhouse is a quality classic slasher flick, that I would recommend to those looking beyond the first tier pinnacle of slasher titles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)