I understand that this could be quite subjective but I find that I can’t watch through the first 15 minutes of most modern horror films, as they’re either so bad or so predictable that you can guess the outcome of the film before you’ve finished it.
I’m a tradtionalist when it comes to this genre; I still like Blair Witch Project even though nothing much happens, but to tell the truth it’s films like that that so many others learnt from and built on. The original Alien film was made on that premise… in that you don’t really see the namesake.
There are some films that have followed this particular trait. The Hills Have Eyes 2006 remake was redone following the success of others (Texas Chainsaw, Amityville Horror) and is great as you don’t see any of the action until later on.
The original Texas Chainsaw (1974) is great for the same reason. The cinematography in that film is off the chart.
I’m not a fan of jump scares, and films that constantly build up from one scene to the next just to create that reaction. They tend to not have any plot either and for that reason they tend to be quite boring.
I’m open to suggestions though and happy to receive any recommendations!
Midsommar brightly dances through fields of tulips to create an unsettling depiction of emasculation. “That was a waste of time” muttered the viewers behind me. “What on earth is going on?” laughed the friends in front of me. “That was hilarious!” chuckled the imprudent heterosexual lads as I was walking out. Rather infuriatingly, as with most cases of contemporary filmmaking, I yearned to instantly throw a rebuttal at their faces. “What did you expect?”.
Sure, A24 were excessively marketing this as if it was a mainstream horror, but even from the promotional material you could tell it was a piece of contemporary art. Divisive both in content and in art from. And I couldn’t be any happier with the results. A group of friends, following recent dramatic trauma, travel to Sweden for a festival that occurs nearly every century. However, this festival is managed by a pagan cult who slowly envelope these tourists in a shroud of hallucinogenic transcendence.
With contemporary horror, and folk films in general, I repeatedly blurt out the phrase “you get out what you put in”. If you are close minded, despise ambiguity and are repulsed by a glacial narrative pace, this film is not for you. Midsommar is not a “horror” film intrinsically. Unsettling? Absolutely. But at its Swedish core is a drama depicting the tension of a relationship breakdown. The emotional tonality and instability of the looming presence of frailty with the one you cherish most. The horrific festivities and ceremonious rituals is a tantalising representation of the delirious pain and heightened hallucinatory dementedness that is often evoked in a long lasting relationship. Aster conveys the highs and lows through palpable events that conjure emotional turmoil for the characters. Which brings me to the “style over substance” argument.
Often, as is the case with many ambiguous visions, the story and character development is more transparent than literal. The progression of these friends isn’t necessarily painted in black and white, but watercolour instead. Dani in particular undergoes the most expressive development. Representing a weak and unstable state of mind during her family trauma, only to the increasingly grow stronger as she welcomes resentment and bitterness. Perfectly performed by Pugh who is fast becoming a global sensation. I knew she was one to watch ever since ‘Lady Macbeth’. Her other peers, arguably, garner less screen time and are mere expendable assets to the folk horror vibe that Aster has lovingly shot. And trust me when I say this film is beautiful.
Far too many breathtaking camera angles and one take sequences that left me picking my jaw up off the floor. It’s not often an unsettling film such as this is entirely shot in broad daylight and still produce the same effect. Just awe-inspiring, and Aster continues to be a talent to watch blossom. His ability to allow multiple interpretations exhume from the same story is effortless. A colossal amount of allegories and depictions, ranging from: spirituality, religion, matriarchal cultism, modernisation and emasculation.
The final scene, being one of the most provocatively artistic moments in the film, resembling the interconnectedness of community and family. A theme explored heavily in Aster’s previous directorial efforts, ‘Hereditary’. And in some ways, this is a companion piece to that. Which brings me to the same criticism that I had with ‘Hereditary’. Aster is simply unable to satisfyingly produce a third act that seemingly keeps in tone with the preceding plot. Less is more. Unfortunately the shock value ramps up rapidly without much development and fails to resonate with me personally. The psychedelic visuals and bloody rituals accelerate faster than a flower blooming, and just loses its grip.
Can I recommend this film? Of course I can. Will I recommend this film? No. This is a divisive film that, whilst open to interpretation, is a film you need to want to watch. It’s contemporary filmmaking at its best, that just loses its folkish edge towards its climax.
Two similar films in concept, but with a completely different plot. One I think didn’t work that great, but still seemed to get a whole load of awards and nominations. One that frustrated me so much that I was originally going to write this post to slate it. Without holding back, here we go.
Fronted by husband and wife team, Emily Blunt and John Krasinski, “a family is forced to live in silence while hiding from monsters with ultra-sensitive hearing.” To add to that, it’s set in a post apocalyptic world – sounds great right? I thought so too for the first 30 minutes or so. It set off really well. It built up the story line really well, and was genuinely eerie until they presented the monsters. I thought they had honestly added them in as an afterthought. It’s kind of like Alien, as you don’t really see the whole thing, but you see bits. I think it certainly would have been better leaving you knowing what was happening rather than presenting that to you.
For me, after that point, the film did go down hill. I lost interest in it and got really frustrated with it.
I think some of this may be down to its short running time (only 90 minutes) and trying to fill such a small amount of time with such a large concept, or maybe what was in fact so good was the lack of any dialogue.
So to skip to the chase, Birdbox, a film fronted by Sandra Bullock (I’d rather go back and watch Speed again), for the most part, with some cameos from other well known actors, works on a similar premise but instead of not being able to make a noise, the people are attacked if they see the “monster”. I’ll try not to delve too much deeper as I don’t want to include any plot spoilers. Unlike A Quiet Place, everyone must remain blindfolded when outdoors, or keep shutters and curtains closed when indoors, to protect themselves from what is outside.
The film is a little longer at 124 minutes long, but actually doesn’t feel that long. It had some interesting plot twists as well, and although a lot of critics are killing it with poor ratings, I felt it fared better than A Quiet Place overall.
IMDb rating 6.7/10 My rating 6/10 (more reasonable, eh!)
Conclusion
Having read into both films, it has been brought to my attention that I should really go and watch The Happening which is also similar in genre. Overall I really am not a big “horror” or post-apocalyptic type films, which fuels my dislike for films such as these, but I’ll leave you to make up your own mind on both.
