Quote:
Originally Posted by UFAlien
Michael doesn't need to like the film, of course, but his arguments are all very subjective and, in my opinion, somewhat misguided.
|
What film review
isn't subjective? Responses to films (and books, plays, poems, etc.) are inherently personal. Every reviewer -- and, for that matter, everyone who posts on a forum -- starts from their own reaction and works forward. Saying that a reviewer is being subjective is like saying that a poster is expressing an opinion. It's pretty much a given.
That being said, in writing a review, one tries to do more than just say, "I liked it" or "it sucked". You try to figure out where the reaction comes from, and the best reviewers, for me, are those who can illuminate some aspect of a film, even if you don't ultimately agree with their take. Pauline Kael was brilliant that way; even when I thought she was flat out wrong, she always had great insights.
In any case, I'm grateful to be read.
I think, though, you may have read more than I meant into a few points (and less into others):
First, there's a difference between episodic
events and choppy narrative. I cited the Lutzes' tour of the house with the broker as an example of effective storytelling, and that's as "episodic" as they come, but it unfolds on the screen in a way that feels connected and compelling. I don't see a similar coherence in the rest of the film.
The Haunting from 1963 is certainly "episodic", but its narrative, mood and tone are all of a piece.
Second, I don't understand how you get from my wanting a narrative with coherence to wanting "a traditionally structured, cliched Hollywood haunted house movie". The examples I used were
The Shining and
Alien. Those films hardly fit that description. (I have not seen the
Amityville remake.)
Third, I don't "complain" about not seeing Kathy's ex. I simply note that he's never mentioned, and it's a relevant point because the film's dialogue raises it. Early on,
George complains that the kids still call him "George", thereby implicitly raising the question of what they're supposed to call him and whom he's replacing. A careful storyteller doesn't raise such questions without answering them (which wouldn't have been hard to do). By itself, this would be a detail, but there are others, and they add up.
Fourth, ghosts and demons do follow people around in other movies, but in
this movie the evil force alternates between roaming free and being very much confined to the house. Hence, all the historical information about Native American burial grounds (another embellishment on the book, if I'm not mistaken), the sickening of the priest and nun who enter, the insistence that Father Delaney "get out". Again, from a consistent cinema
narrative point of view, it would have been more effective to set "rules" for the evil force, instead of making it a randomly occurring phenomenon. Confining the film to the house would have made for a much creepier film, regardless of what was in the book. But then the filmmakers would have had to forgo all that extra Catholic imagery -- not to mention Steiger's characteristic overacting ("low-key, off-kilter sense of creepiness" -- seriously?).
Fifth, I never said there should be "another scene" with Jeff and Carolyn, and it doesn't make one whit of difference what the book says about them. When significant screen time has been devoted to introducing two characters and making them important, having them suddenly disappear without exit or comment is inept storytelling. The exit can be handled briefly in any number of ways (and I'm not going to suggest possibilities, lest we get sidetracked in nitpicking), but it must be dealt with somehow. Otherwise, it's the same as if I just decided not to finish a sentence and ended in mid-word. Sort of like t
Sixth, I didn't mean to suggest that the the family "doesn't run away soon enough" (though, as I recall, Richard Pryor did so in one of his stand-up routines
). Again, my point is structural. There's a set endpoint, which is the family's departure, and the narrative should build to that. I don't think it does so effectively.
Now, I'm fully aware that storytelling is a weak point in much contemporary Hollywood fare, but so what? I'm looking at this film on its own terms. I didn't think it held up when I first saw it back in the day, and despite my hope that the passage of time would reveal something I'd previously missed (which happens all the time), it still doesn't.
Side note to paulthefencer: Just to be clear, I have never claimed that the original book was fictionalized, only that the account was disputed. But there's no question that the
film adds things, and it's beside the point that the remake embellished even more.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Linear Mode
