It
can be hard to say when tropes tip over into clichés. Tropes are a
useful and probably essential part of writing stories, whether films,
tv, books, comics or games. But if they start getting used too much
do they become over familiar and y'know, boring?
Or
is it how well they are used that are important? I watched two horror
films this week that both used what for me is the biggest of modern
horror movie staples to wildly varying effect. Spoilers for both
films follow.
The films in question are Babek
Anvari's amazing debut “Under The Shadow” and the infinitely less
amazing “The Woman In Black: Angel of Death” directed by Tom
Harper btw. Quick reviews/synopsis follow.
The former is a genuinely odd blend of
low key family drama, set in Tehran during the Iran/Iraq war shortly
after the revolution. A young mother decides to remain in the city
with her daughter after her doctor husband is sent to an area of
heavy fighting by the military. Refusing to go to her in-laws on the
basis that they are apparently absolute bellends, this start to go
pretty weird after a missile hits the building they live in and an
allegedly mute orphan starts telling the little girl about the djinn
which haunt the war torn city. Shot in a mostly hand-held style and
bolstered by a great performance from the luminous Narges Rashidi
(“luminous” is a posh word writers use when they really fancy the
actor involved), it also benefits from shots or mordant humour,
genuinely freaky imagery and a unique setting. “Under The Shadow”
is up there with the best of the recent art house horror crop –
9/10
“Angel of Death” is a sequel to
the earlier adaptation of Susan Hill's famous shit 'em up novel (and
play). A bunch of war evacuees, their teachers and for some reason an
airman one of the teachers immediately gets all flustered over
actually decide to flee a war torn city but end up in the haunted
house from the first film. The resident vegenful, child murdering
ghosty isn't happy, lots of people. Maybe they had the right idea in
“Under the Shadow” after all. While the first film had a decent
performance from Daniel Radcliffe and his awesome Victorian facial
hair and was generally a well put together film. “Angel of Death”
suffers from stilted acting, dialogue and an apparently endless
cliché storm – 3/10
So, back to what I was saying. Think
of how many recent supernatural horror films you've seen recently
where this happens: the protagonist is walking slowly around
somewhere dark, say their haunted apartment or the crumbling house
they're holed up. They spot something weird moving in the murk and
stop to peer quizzically at it. The camera shows us their perspective
and watch the weird thing for a few seconds before it suddenly
lurches right up into the camera for a split second, preferably
moving at uncanny speeds. Cheap jump scare central. In “Angel of
Death” the hideous, twisted face of the titular undead bastard does
this when attacking a secondary character. It says much about the
film that I can't remember if the character dies at that stage, but
that isn't the usual outcome of this shot.
Instead we normally get what “Under
the Shadow” does, which is the protagonist comes face to horrible
face with the thingymajig for an instant then immediately wakes up in
bed. The old “it-was-a-dream-but-was-it-really-though” trick.
“The Forest” starring the luminous Natalie Dormer pulls the same
gag, as do various no-budget straight to streaming delights I have
watched of late.
What “Under the Shadow” does
differently two fold. Firstly, the normal hand-held camera style has
been replaced by a steadier, slower moving shot. It immediately puts
you on edge that something weird is going to happen because of a
simple but beautifully effective camera move Anvari pulled off
earlier. Rashidi's character Shideh is laid in bed while the camera
is on it's side so she is vertical in the frame. She hears a noise
and wakes up and the camera tilts through 90 degrees as she does. It
then smoothly follows her to the first massive jump scare of the
film. Knowing that this non-hand-held style heralds the oh-shit
coming increases the tension, as does the fact that the quizzical “no
what actually is that shot” has the little girl in the background,
which is rare as these things go.
Secondly, the whatsit in “Under the
Shadow” pretty much doesn't look like any other creature you see in
these things. It's basically a bed sheet ghost (patterned like a
headscarf, somewhat significantly), but moves in such an uncanny and
unnatural way that the sudden lurch to camera is a proper jolt. It
goes to show what a little bit of imagination in creating your spooky
antagonist can achieve.
The similar scene in “Angel of
Death” isn't bad per se, and is probably the biggest scare in the
film. It just doesn't do anything new. The Woman's face, a fairly
good achievement in making a human visage look utterly malicious,
zooms at you out of the darkness before the screaming starts.
There are other similar scenes, for
example both films employ big old jump scares looking out of a
darkened window, but we'll be hear all night. I think my point is
that clichés are clichés for a reason, but if they're used
effectively in a film that does the other stuff well enough they're
more forgivable than in an average film. “Under the Shadow” is
an extraordinary film so pulls them off with aplomb.
Word of warning: I'll probably
write about “Under the Shadow” again after re-watch because I've
barely scratched the surface of what makes it great.
