I’ve barely watched a horror film in ten years, since The Blair Witch Projectwas released on DVD. I thought that was the scariest supernatural film since The Exorcist thirty years earlier, which, in turn, was the most frightening demonic screen experience since Jonathan Miller’s brilliant TV adaptation of M.R. James’s classic short story, “Oh Whistle and I’ll Come to You, My Lad” in Rosemary’s Baby, both 1968.
Before that, you’d probably have to go way back Dead of Night in 1945 and then Nosferatu in 1922. (Remember, I’m talking about supernatural horror here.)
Earlier this week I watched possibly the scariest supernatural horror movie I’ve ever seen. Paranormal Activity, currently running on Sky Movies, was made in 2007 for a reputed $15,000 by writer-director, Oren Peli, in his own house, using a home video camera and three actors. This tale of a young American couple plagued by an unseen demon is supposedly told – as with Blair Witch – entirely using what is supposedly “found footage”, i.e. video found after the event (the “typical bloke” day-trader boyfriend decides to capture everything on camera after his girl-friend claims that an unseen presence which has visited her twice before has returned).
The rights to the film were acquired by Dreamworks at the Sundance Festival in 2008. They trimmed it a bit and gussied up the ending and it went on release in cinemas in October last year, since when it has earned some $198 million worldwide – making probably the best return on investment in the history of the cinema.
And it is brilliant!
Its creator has been afraid of ghosts all his life, and he evokes that visceral, primal terror so successfully that this large, 58-year old man, living in one of the most crowded cities on earth – someone who once earned his crust dreaming up horror stories, so knows all the tricks, and who has spent decades laughing or sneering at countless lame “horror” movies – actually had to sleep with the light on afterwards.
It is that good. (Just look at audience reaction in this trailer.)
And it’s all done with the bare minimum of special effects, and less gore than you’d find in the average episode of In the Night Garden. Best of all, there are no teenagers being bumped off one by one! Or some impossibly unkillable killer wearing a mask! Or a series of silly false endings, where the killer/entity has mysteriously disappeared! Or zombies frightening everyone to death despite only being to move at two miles an hour!
What you get is a series of quiet, subtle events (until near the end – but even then, it’s all pretty low-key) which, as they build in intensity, send more genuine shivers along the spine than any other film has ever managed.
Of course, there have been several really enjoyable supernatural horror movies along the way, but they’ve tended to be either straightforward cop thrillers (1998’s highly enjoyable Fallen, in which detective Denzel Washington is pursued by a body-shifting demon) or quirky new takes on old horror themes, where the “horror” element is basically a metaphor for, say, teenage alienation (e.g. last year’s superb Swedish movie, Let the Right One In). With Paranormal Activity, the supernatural element is the whole point of the film: it doesn’t symbolise anything - the movie really is about a demon.
There are countless creepy scenes which will live in my memory for years. The video camera, which is left on all night in the corner of the room to capture untoward events, shows the girlfriend getting out of bed in the middle of the night and standing, staring at her boyfriend, stock-still, for two hours (the time code is shown in fast-forward mode). I can’t tell you how weird and wrong that is.
At one stage – another night-time fixed-position bedroom shot – we see a shadow move across the open bedroom door (I let out a yelp). A sheet puffs up, as if caught by the wind (I made one of those sounds men tend to make when changing a nappy).
The dialogue is mainly extemporized: “I lightened up the footage from last night. You can see the footsteps,” presages a particularly fine moment (cue more nappy-changing sounds).
The following exchange, which takes place in the upstairs hallway just after they’ve found a picture of both of them smashed, is wonderfully creepy:
She: Something's here.
He: This is bullshit.
She (stiff with fear): It's here.
He: What's here? What? What're you talking about?
She: I don't know. I feel it. I feel it breathing on me.
Eurrggghhhh!
I realize that all of you skeptical sophisticates will be wondering what the fuss is all about, but for an old horror fan who had assumed that no film would ever again make him worry about entering a dark room,Paranormal Activity is a huge and unexpected treat, which proves the old adage: less is sometimes more
An unsettling film, I agree, but I managed a good night's sleep afterwards. You once made a living out of this sort of thing and you have evidently retained the capacity to be frightened by it, but I was wondering if you actually believed in it. I don;'t necessarily mean demons, but anything at all, like ghosts, poltergeist, precognition, that sort of thing. I didn't use to, until I saw what seemed remarkably like a ghost about ten years ago - which I would not be admitting it I wasn't using a pseudonym.
ReplyDeleteWednesday, December 1, 2010 - 12:39 AM
At the age of 8 [1954] I saw two horror films in quick succession. I was far too young and they led to serious nightmares and deep feelings of anxiety for months. They were "Them!" [1954]- about giant ants roaming around feeding off humans] and Vincent Price in "The House of Wax" [1953] which embedded some horrifying images in my mind. Result: a life-long fear of bugs & Madame Tussauds and a complete avoidance of horror films. After all, I don't want to pull a Sir Herbert Morrison.
ReplyDeleteI did, however, see Max Schreck as Nosferatu and it wasn't a patch on George Hamilton as Dracula in "Love at First Bite" [1979] - "Be still, creatures of the night!" [not dissimilar to the uncontrolled neighing of horses off-screen whenever Frau Blucher's name was mentioned in "Young Frankenstein"]
Wednesday, December 1, 2010 - 10:55 AM
Harumphrey, I’m now agog to hear your ghost story!
ReplyDeleteI’ve had a few dodgy experiences, the last one about three years ago, but they’re all open to rational explanation. It’s odd, but when it comes to a belief in some sort of God, I just decided to believe, after several decades of doubt: there was no Damascene moment – I just decided that, as I could believe, I would.
As for supernatural events, I’d like to believe.
Strikes me that science asks us to accept the most fantastic explanations for how our world works – string theory is great fun, but seems to me to be a great deal harder to swallow than basic Christian beliefs! As for the supernatural, the most compelling argument in its favour is that only one of the millions (possibly billions) of experiences reported by human beings over millennia has to be true for all of it to be possible – i.e. one ghost sighting (perhaps your own), one poltergeist outbreak, one UFO, one instance of precognition, or a phone call from the dead, or teleportation, one “out of body” experience, one example of telepathy, or remote viewing or… Well, it only takes one of these things to have ever taken place – and, goodness, there have been some convincing reports – and anything could be true. At the very least, it’s a fascinating area of psychology.
The real problem with the occult is that its proponents tend to be such a collection of unconvincing wankers and/or charlatans – I only have to see a man with a goatee beard and a pentagram medallion round his neck and I’m suddenly a fan of Richard Dawkins!
However, I would like some of it to be true (hard to define in this context) because it would make life richer and more interesting. Mad as it sounds, I have a feeling one of science’s more outlandish theories (string theory’s a strong contender) allied to Jungian psychology might hold the key to it all – things slipping between ‘branes etc.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010 - 07:59 PM
Mr Wimpy, so-called “Creature Features” have never really done it for me – but I think eight is far too young to see one, and I seem to remember Them! Was a pretty good example - well made. House of Wax was a genuinely creepy film – a remake, I think of Mystery of 1933's Wax Museum, which had Lionel Atwill in the Vincent Price role (he too has his wax mask of a face cracked by the heroine to reveal the hideous, fire-disfigured reality underneath). My introduction to screen horror was probably the old British movie, Dead of Night, on TV – disturbing, but I must have been ten or eleven at the time, a much better age, I would think. (By the way, I was the only person in my family to have any interest in horror, science fiction or fantasy, and I’ve no idea where my taste for them came from. I’ve hardly met anyone who could care less about any of those genres!)
ReplyDeleteI reckon Love At First Bite and Young Frankenstein are the two best horror comedies ever made (along with Bob Hope’s The Ghost Breakers and An American Werewolf in London) George Hamilton gave his only vaguely decent performance in the first (“Creatures of the night – shut up!”), just as Marty Feldman did in the latter.
You’re going to have to explain what doing a Herbert Morrison is.
The Ghost Breakers contains the best political joke in film history:
Montgomery: When a person dies and is buried, it seems there are certain voodoo priests who have the power to bring him back to life”
Carter: How horrible!
Montgomery: It’s worse than horrible, because a zombie has no will of his own. You see them sometimes walking around blindly, with dead eyes, following orders, not knowing what they do, not caring.
Carter: You mean like Democrats?
Wednesday, December 1, 2010 - 11:35 PM