Creep (streaming on
Netflix)
The great test for a Horror story is this: if the story was
stopped at the end of any given scene, would you want to start it back up and
see what happens next? In my little parade of Horror Movies so far, only Under
the Skin and Pontypool have been this good at acing the test. Creep is expertly
designed, a tight Found Footage movie running just 1:17.
Aaron is a broke cameraman hired to film the entire day with
a random guy from Craigslist, named Josef. Josef reveals that he has two months
to live thanks to a brain tumor and won’t live to see the birth of his son, and
wants to document what his life was like. He’s eccentric but warm, and it’s
pretty hard not to feel sympathy for him.
But before their introductions are over, Josef strips naked
right in front of Aaron. He has an explanation, but it’s the first in a long
series of strange behaviors. Josef keeps testing the boundaries of what Aaron
will put up with, including hiding to jump out at him for “jokes,” confessing
increasingly disturbing events, and as dusk approaches, creating every excuse
possible to make him stay.
Pretty soon you’re questioning whether Josef has a son, and
if he’s sick at all. It contributes to the paranoia for Aaron’s safety, and to
the intrigue of what’s actually wrong with Josef. Mark Duplass shines as Josef,
straddling the line between someone with too much weight in his life, and
someone who might be dangerous.
The movie wanders into ableist territory here. The “is he
really sick or just out for sympathy?” trope has led to too many cruelties to
the chronically ill and disabled. It’s bullshit and needs to be engaged with
critically. I can see why moviemakers think it’s subversive, as movies with
sympathetic disabled and chronically ill protagonists have been around for so
long. Silver Bullet was one of the first Horror Movies I saw as a kid. But this
faking trope is worn out, and grates the more often you see it.
People with disabilities and chronic illnesses respond to
these in different ways. I took it in stride, and appreciated the strengths of
the movie so much that it didn’t bother me on the viewing. It’s something
people need to be aware of, though.
As an aside, I’m still mulling over a post on Don’t Breathe,
10 Cloverfield Lane, and individual responses to ableism in Horror. I’d like to
get it up before Halloween, but it may have to wait until after.
I was pulled through by Creep’s phenomenal ability to set up
scene after scene, always teasing what would come next. After Aaron and Josef
bang into each other and the camera goes black for two seconds, followed by the
picture returning with neither of them in frame and set somewhere the movie has
never gone before, how couldn’t you want to know what comes next?
While Creep is great at getting you from one scene to
another, its payoff is weak. So many early scenes end in a more interesting
fashion than you expect, but the ending is one of the most obvious things
possible. For me, it’s well worth the ride. Horror has a long history of weak
endings. But you should be ready for it.
The Good Neighbor
(rentable on Google Play, Youtube, and iTunes for $6.99)
What a brilliant concept after all those Found Footage
Haunting movies! The Good Neighbor follows a pair of awful teenagers who, in
the name of “science,” bug a neighbor’s house and prank him into believing that
he’s being haunted. They toy with his lights, stereo, thermostat, even his back
door to slam at specific intervals. After the old man snaps and destroys his
rigged back door with an axe, they know they’ve stumbled on something. Then
their equipment begins to malfunction as though someone (or something) is
watching them.
It’s a great premise, but the movie never quite lives up to
it. The product is exactly the sort of thing I recommend beginning writers
watch to learn from.
The Good Neighbor stumbles with its many points of view.
Horror hinges on giving the audience only the right details, and so you usually
stick with a protagonist, or just their small group, letting the audience know
little more than the people they’re investing in. When Peter Benchley gives us
the shark’s point of view for a scene in his novel Jaws, it’s calculated to increase tension by letting us know just a
little more. But The Good Neighbor gives the audience an overload of POVs. They
include:
1) Traditional movie scenes following the teens go through
their plots
2) Traditional movie scenes following the subject both when
he’s being messed with, and not, such as simply taking out the garbage or
getting into arguments with strangers
3) Flashbacks to the man’s past, usually memories he’s
having
4) “Found footage” confessionals in which the teens narrate their
motives to their camera
5) “Found Footage” that the teens are recording of their
subject
6) Flashforwards to a trial related to the pseudo-haunting,
with a prosecutor talking about the tragedy
There are so many sources of information in these six points
of view that the audience struggles to focus. There’s no structure to cohere
the three different time periods and three different filming styles together.
The movie jumps between them whenever it seems convenient, and it’s guaranteed
to annoy people who just want to get invested in the teens’ plot or whatever is
happening to the old man.
If it was just Found Footage, you would focus on what the
teens know and what they need to find out, dreading the mystery. If it was just
present-tense of the teens and the old man, you could balance the interplay of
what each party knows. As it is, The Good Neighbor gets so cluttered that it
can’t build anticipation of anything.
Think I'll pass on The Good Neighbor. And Creep, just because I've had enough of found footage films. They sometimes make me ill with all of the camera shaking as well.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I think my favorite horror films really deal with supernatural creatures or elements rather than crazy people.
ReplyDeleteOoooh. Just in my head I playing footage from both of these. And am seriously uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteDespite never seeing either.
Delete