Getting a horror film right is like balancing a perfect comedy. The build-up needs to be spot on with a worthy punchline in order for the audience to feel satisfied. Whereas the punchline needs to be funny in comedy, the punchline in horror needs to be that exact moment when your heart feels like it's going to burst out of your mouth with fear.But, what actually is scary? People's fears are widely different. Fear usually comes from a deep hidden origin, like a bad experience with something as a child or a deep belief you've just always seemed to have.
I am deathly scared of ghosts and would literally walk past open doors in the dark with my hand cupped around my eyes, incase something would jump out at me. I think the fear of ghosts used to come from living in an old stately home (that was converted into a pub) and hearing all of the "ghostly tales" that went on there (but I was at least 13/14 by the time we moved there - a bit too old to be scared of ghosts really!!) I'm not too sure what covering my eyes would do exactly and how I thought it would keep me safe. I think I had the mentality of, "If I can't see it, then it can't harm me."
It's films like The Woman in Black that I find the scariest of all horror films. Zombies don't bother me. Serial killers can go take a running jump. But, tell me a tale of a malevolent spirit determined to wreak havoc on the living world around it, then I will be hooked.
The Woman in Black cements Hammer Studios return to horror cinema. After the brilliant remake, Let Me In (if you haven't seen it yet, go see it) and the so-so, The Resident, The Woman in Black is a gloriously, creepy British period horror film about a ghostly woman... who wears black. The film follows Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) who is sent by his law firm to sort out the Last Will and Testament of one of their clients, Mrs Drablow (Alisa Khazanova). The local residents aren't so welcoming of his visit and while he is at her uber-creepy mansion, Eel Marsh House, Kipps starts to see visions of a ghostly spectre.
I'm not going to give much more of the plot away, because if you haven't read the book or seen the stage play, then what follows is a brilliant tale of ghostly revenge. For the stage play, the story was adapted to host the story in a theatre - the character of Kipps is acting out his story of the woman in black with another actor, because he wants to warn people of the ghost and exorcise her spirit.
The film also makes some changes. In all honesty, the film could have kept the exact same plot as the book and still have made a very good film. But, some of the changes that screenwriter Jane Goldman makes are actually pretty good. Some lovers of the book/stage play won't like this, but making the character of Kipps so desperate (he is at risk of loosing his job and his relationship with his son is strained) actually help make his decisions to stay overnight in the creepy Eel Marsh House a lot more understandable.
Goldman also changes the ending, which arguably helps wrap up the film a lot more neatly than the original book/stage play. It's not a perfect ending, but it just seems to make a bit more sense and without a lingering sense that the story just isn't finished yet. In the film, the story is definitely over...
Some changes aren't so welcome though. The main one is the inclusion of Mrs Daily (Janet McTeer), the quirky wife of Daily (Ciaran Hinds) who seems to have a psychic connection with the dead and the woman in black. By the time she is introduced into the film, it is well into spooky territory after Kipps has spent a day at Eel Marsh House and has seen the woman in black. Mrs Daily then provides some comic relief that we just don't really need. Her psychic drawings help drive the plot forward, but they just seem to come out of nowhere... she just seems to come out of nowhere. An establishing scene of her holding one of her seances would have been a nice way to introduce Mrs Daily and her psychic abilities (we see an advert in the newspaper for her seances early in the film, but we never see her hold one.)
A final issue with the film (that has been brought up by many people online) is the film's heavy reliance on "jump scares".
A crow squeaks loudly. A toy suddenly comes to life and starts moving. A character pops up out of nowhere. Those are just a few of the jump scares that the film relies on and those are the ones that don't even include the ghostly woman in black! The film does balance these jump scares out with well drawn out tension as Kipps wanders around the house and it's grounds, but the over reliance on jump scares sometimes sucks the spookiness out of the scene.
After a shock, an audience seems to feel the need to laugh it off (a natural reaction, I guess.) When you are trying to build a sense of dread, laughter is not something you want to hear all the time when watching a horror film that uses a lot of jump scares.
Overall, the film is really creepy and is a good showpiece for Radcliffe to show the world that he is not just a boy wizard. The film has caused some controversy, because after having about 6 seconds cut from the film it was awarded a 12A certificate, which means any child under 12 can see the film if accompanied by an adult. I don't really agree with this. While the film is not gory in the slightest, the continued sense of horror built up throughout the film really does not make this suitable for young children.
So, my question to you is this; for children, just how scary is too scary?
**** / *****
No comments:
Post a Comment