Terry (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} albedo777) wrote,@ 2008-06-02 12:03:00 |
|
The Strangers
There's something about a theatre audience that can completely change your movie-viewing experience. I remember, awhile back, seeing The Exorcism of Emily Rose (PG-13) and, while I enjoyed the movie up to a point, the audience sucked. It brought what could have been a good or even great experience down to below par. It pulled me out of the experience, ruined certain sequences and was a downright nuisance at times. The following week, we went to see Venom (Rated R), your typical slasher type flick in the same vein as Friday the 13th. Venom is a sub par movie, but it was a hugely better experience that the previous week's film. The audience gasped appropriately, jumped, occasionally screamed, but it was never over-the-top or inappropriate. It made a sub par movie an excellent experience that was fun, scary and enjoyable.
This chemistry and electricity that builds in a theatre is one of the differentiating factors between seeing a movie in your house with a couple people and a whole theatre filled with people. Forget the amazing sound or the big screen, it's the audience that keeps pulling me back to the theatre. Recently, that thrill hasn't been there; with the advent and increasing popularity of cell phones and the increasingly rude people who believe a theatre is an extension of their living room, finding a good audience is difficult. Which is sad because that very important dynamic can make or break a movie-watching experience.
Saturday renewed my faith in the theatre audience. We went to see The Strangers, the theatre was packed to the brim, and the audience was in the mood for some terrific scares. The beginning reminded me a bit of last year's under-rated (but not by much) Vacancy with its set up. Here you have the two love birds going to a summer home after attending a reception in which James (Scott Speedman) proposed to Kristen (Liv Tyler) and was rejected. The mood is somber and sad. Then the chills start with a girl knocking on the door, asking for Tamara, who doesn't live there. After that moment, James goes to purchase some cigarettes for Kristen and she's left alone in the house as weird things start happening.
More knocks on the door, objects in the house moved and one awesome sequence (that elicited some terrific screams) in which a man wearing a mask slowly moves into focus behind Kristen, signaling an important event: whoever they are, they're in the house. This beginning with Kristen in the house is a perfect example of pacing and tension. Even though Bryant Bertino is a first time director, he has a good angle on tension and creates the perfect tense/release situation possible. Before you know it, the movie is racing towards its inevitable conclusion. The first half is pitch perfect; the last half kind of loses focus, unfortunately. I think the film could have used a little cutting in the end, but it was an exciting film and a perfect audience that elevated it to a higher level. Movies like this require audience participation and mine was the perfect environment to see it in.
Roger Ebert didn't like the film, which didn't surprise me. His comment was, "what a maddening, nihilistic, infuriating ending!" I knew he'd say this after I read about the film. It's not giving anything away to say that it doesn't end well for our love birds; the beginning of the movie flat out tells you this via an opening narration and the ending scene told from the point of view of two Mormon boys, peddling their religion. He's of the school of thought that if a movie doesn't have a happy ending, it's a bad film. This is a decree from the "Golden Days" of Hollywood, in which you had to have a gleaming ending, regardless of the events that lead up to it. I personally didn't care for the ending, not because of the way it ended, but the how. It was definitely nihilistic, yes, but it was also very anti-climatic.
Usually horror films are about breaking humanity down to its basic level: the need to survive. The basic treatise is that, when faced with adversity, we are all animals and will do whatever we can to survive, whether it's the survival of our own lives or our loved ones. Eventually, everyone sinks to that level and its through this transformation that they are saved. It's the premise that "in order to defeat the monster, you must become one." Name the majority of horror films, and you'll find this to be true.
One of the best recent cases is the remake of The Hills Have Eyes. I loved this film. It's a much better film than its predecessor. But what it does best to exemplify this so silently and subtly is present the character of Doug. Doug doesn't like guns, he's from corporate America and has the latest in electronics. In a family that seems to be staunchly conservative, gun-loving folks, you have this guy who is probably on the NRA's black list and doesn't share any of the family's values. His journey through the film involves him having to save his baby from the horrible things living in the hills and, consequently, he has to go through Hell and fight, becoming just as bad as the people he hates, in order to survive.
The Strangers plays like this type of movie, but instead of saving them, the premise indicates that sometimes, there's nothing you can do. The general thought is that there's no safety in the world and our tenuous grasp on the illusion we surround ourselves can unravel at anytime, simply because, "you were home."
There's something about a theatre audience that can completely change your movie-viewing experience. I remember, awhile back, seeing The Exorcism of Emily Rose (PG-13) and, while I enjoyed the movie up to a point, the audience sucked. It brought what could have been a good or even great experience down to below par. It pulled me out of the experience, ruined certain sequences and was a downright nuisance at times. The following week, we went to see Venom (Rated R), your typical slasher type flick in the same vein as Friday the 13th. Venom is a sub par movie, but it was a hugely better experience that the previous week's film. The audience gasped appropriately, jumped, occasionally screamed, but it was never over-the-top or inappropriate. It made a sub par movie an excellent experience that was fun, scary and enjoyable.
This chemistry and electricity that builds in a theatre is one of the differentiating factors between seeing a movie in your house with a couple people and a whole theatre filled with people. Forget the amazing sound or the big screen, it's the audience that keeps pulling me back to the theatre. Recently, that thrill hasn't been there; with the advent and increasing popularity of cell phones and the increasingly rude people who believe a theatre is an extension of their living room, finding a good audience is difficult. Which is sad because that very important dynamic can make or break a movie-watching experience.
Saturday renewed my faith in the theatre audience. We went to see The Strangers, the theatre was packed to the brim, and the audience was in the mood for some terrific scares. The beginning reminded me a bit of last year's under-rated (but not by much) Vacancy with its set up. Here you have the two love birds going to a summer home after attending a reception in which James (Scott Speedman) proposed to Kristen (Liv Tyler) and was rejected. The mood is somber and sad. Then the chills start with a girl knocking on the door, asking for Tamara, who doesn't live there. After that moment, James goes to purchase some cigarettes for Kristen and she's left alone in the house as weird things start happening.
More knocks on the door, objects in the house moved and one awesome sequence (that elicited some terrific screams) in which a man wearing a mask slowly moves into focus behind Kristen, signaling an important event: whoever they are, they're in the house. This beginning with Kristen in the house is a perfect example of pacing and tension. Even though Bryant Bertino is a first time director, he has a good angle on tension and creates the perfect tense/release situation possible. Before you know it, the movie is racing towards its inevitable conclusion. The first half is pitch perfect; the last half kind of loses focus, unfortunately. I think the film could have used a little cutting in the end, but it was an exciting film and a perfect audience that elevated it to a higher level. Movies like this require audience participation and mine was the perfect environment to see it in.
Roger Ebert didn't like the film, which didn't surprise me. His comment was, "what a maddening, nihilistic, infuriating ending!" I knew he'd say this after I read about the film. It's not giving anything away to say that it doesn't end well for our love birds; the beginning of the movie flat out tells you this via an opening narration and the ending scene told from the point of view of two Mormon boys, peddling their religion. He's of the school of thought that if a movie doesn't have a happy ending, it's a bad film. This is a decree from the "Golden Days" of Hollywood, in which you had to have a gleaming ending, regardless of the events that lead up to it. I personally didn't care for the ending, not because of the way it ended, but the how. It was definitely nihilistic, yes, but it was also very anti-climatic.
Usually horror films are about breaking humanity down to its basic level: the need to survive. The basic treatise is that, when faced with adversity, we are all animals and will do whatever we can to survive, whether it's the survival of our own lives or our loved ones. Eventually, everyone sinks to that level and its through this transformation that they are saved. It's the premise that "in order to defeat the monster, you must become one." Name the majority of horror films, and you'll find this to be true.
One of the best recent cases is the remake of The Hills Have Eyes. I loved this film. It's a much better film than its predecessor. But what it does best to exemplify this so silently and subtly is present the character of Doug. Doug doesn't like guns, he's from corporate America and has the latest in electronics. In a family that seems to be staunchly conservative, gun-loving folks, you have this guy who is probably on the NRA's black list and doesn't share any of the family's values. His journey through the film involves him having to save his baby from the horrible things living in the hills and, consequently, he has to go through Hell and fight, becoming just as bad as the people he hates, in order to survive.
The Strangers plays like this type of movie, but instead of saving them, the premise indicates that sometimes, there's nothing you can do. The general thought is that there's no safety in the world and our tenuous grasp on the illusion we surround ourselves can unravel at anytime, simply because, "you were home."
