I had heard a fair bit about this film and even knew the 'twist', but gladly it didn't matter. For me the film didn't hang on the story as much (In a way the truth doesn't matter atall) as the considerable technical skill and confidence in pulling it off.
Elizabeth Moss plays one of the more relatable female characters in horror, and does it exceedingly well. She has a scene or two that really shows off her acting talent, which elevates the film, similar to Toni Collette's performance in Hereditary. In a wonderful, effectively silent opening scene which shows the director (Leigh Whannell, Saw) in top form, we are shown that she is a victim of a mentally controlling and abusive relationship and plans an elaborate night-time escape from their state of the art home. The opening builds considerable tension in a seemingly very straight forward way, we really feel her fear at being found out. Once she is out, crippled by fear of him tracking her down, news reaches her that her ex partner's apparent suicide, presumably consumed by depression from losing her. She is relieved, but strange things begin to happen. In some very creative filmmaking moments she begins to feel, and we begin to see, a presence which becomes very personal, and can seemingly only be her ex coming back with a vengeance. The opening showcases extremely effective filmmaking and builds considerable tension in a seemingly very straight forward way, we feel her fear at being found out.
I liked how the film pitched itselft. In a way, to begin with, the events have a feeling of supernatural interference, which some films would have cultivated before exploring a more scientific, secular explanation. In this case though, it is based solidly in the real world, which I personally appreciate as a sceptic. As an example, I do find it interesting that they went with a title that kind of gives the game away before it even starts (I understand it is a remake of a classic 1930s horror, so the title was never really in question) On one hand the early sections of the film would have played very differently if the audience didn't know the title (that the man is invisible, and not a spirit etc) perhaps with more actual fear (depending on the audience's sensibilities) and perhaps increased marketability. On the other hand though the title at least explains that there is no supernatural at work, which again I think is a good thing. It allows the story to be much more character focused, which does add to the overall engagement.
The claustrophobic saturation of paranoia is rife. The writing of the film does that great thing of making sure everything that happens can be seen in different ways, which makes her story so difficult to believe to all other parties. From an outsiders POV it could all be in her head, she seems to be cracking up, and although we know the truth, there is no explaining it. It's an impressive feat for a film, which reminded me of similar feelings from classics like Rosemary's Baby or We need to talk about Kevin.
It has all the makings of a modern horror classic; performances, music, shooting, writing, and it uses a primal fear of most people (being watched by something unseen, and not being able to see whats around you) something most horror classics do. Jump scares are used sparingly and not just as a simple release of tension. It cultivates that sense of tension through a static shot of seemingly nothing, making you question what you are, or should be, seeing. Overall it was very well done, and perhaps everything that Paranormal Activity should have been.
Comments