It often seems as if the only way to
get A-list actors to be in a horror film is to disguise the film as
something else. This is a sentiment I can't relate to at all. If I
was a star, I can assure you I would tell my agents “Yes, I'll do
your blockbuster this summer. Yes, I'll do your Oscar winner this
Christmas. But dammit, sometime this year I'm being decapitated by a
machete-wielding psychopath!” Then again, that's just me.
The word “thriller” is frequently
applied to Silence of the Lambs, as it can't possibly be a
horror film about serial killers that swept the Oscars. In the same
way, the period piece seems to be a popular method of making a horror
film seem like a not-horror film. I certainly don't mean to bash
period horror. Indeed, one of my favorite horror films of all time
is The Woman in Black, starring Daniel Radcliffe as a
19th-century lawyer (and a single parent, for even more “I'm a
serious actor!” cred).
That said, The Others is the
latter: a horror film set as a period piece so that Nicole Kidman
could dare to show her face in it. I can't help but think that she
resented the project a bit. It's rare for me to be truly uncertain
whether the contempt I feel is for a character or the actor playing
the character. Personally, I feel that Kidman's character was
written to be fanatical, but sympathetic, and she really didn't care
enough to draw sympathy from her performance. Instead, we end up
with the children being “protected” by an insanely controlling,
religious lunatic.
The basic setup of the movie is that
it's World War II. The father of a large house (Christopher
Eccleston) is away at war, and the mother (Kidman) is trying to keep
her light-allergic children (Alakina Mann and James Bentley) safe.
The servants have all left, but new ones arrive (Fionnula Flanagan,
Eric Sykes, and Elaine Cassidy), who seem very strange, and claim to
have previously worked in that very house. Meanwhile, she and the
children begin seeing strange apparitions. The house is surrounded
by fog, and the husband mysteriously returns to the house.
Do I hate the movie? No, certainly
not. There are far worse films out there, staring far worse actors.
But, since I missed the movie's attempt to emotionally hook me, I
found myself fairly uninterested in what was to follow.
Since I make no secret of my
willingness to spoil, I enjoy the privilege of addressing the twist
directly. That twist being that Grace lost her husband at war,
killed her children and committed suicide. They're living eternally
as ghosts. The things they thought were ghosts were actually the new
residents, attempting to contact them. The servants are also ghosts,
and are trying to help them find peace. Looking at the movie in that
light, it becomes about the acceptance of their deaths.
To me, the real horror of this film is
the idea that a person like Grace can be healed and become a
loving parent. To me, the film should have ended with a rejection by
her children, who should have left her alone in the house. Why?
Because abusers don't change! The belief that they do is what drives
the cycle of abuse in the first place.
Is this a terrible film? No, certainly
not. It's a story not worth telling, that's told moderately well.
The visuals are just as black and unpleasant as the film itself, and
I find myself completely unable to locate a single experience in this
movie that I have any real desire to experience again.
No comments:
Post a Comment