Sunday, February 5, 2012

The Woman in Black (2012)


Watching The Woman in Black, I couldn't help but be reminded that film is art. While it has its own structures and confines, I sometimes forget that it is a visual expression of an artistic inclination. I don't know whether more credit should go to director James Watkins, cinematographer Tim Maurice-Jones, costume designer Keith Madden or set decorator Niamh Coulter but The Woman in Black (not to be confused with the 1989 British TV version none of us have heard of) has style to spare.

Set in England during the Edwardian era (which is apparently from 1901-1910... I would have said "Victorian" because, to me, any period in English history after 1066 and before World War II was the "Victorian" era), the movie makes full use of its setting. I don't think it's much of a spoiler to tell you that this is a ghost story. And what better place to house a ghost story than a semi-abandoned, isolated manor in the middle of nowhere during a time period where even during the middle of the day, any source of light is dependent on your willingness to light a metric butt-ton of candles. Throw in a nursery full of wind-up toys which, at the time would have been state-of-the-art but now look like the kind of hellspawn Santa's elves would come up with if he took away their pensions, and you've got yourself a place to tell a good ghost story.

It's rare for me to spend so much time applauding a film's visual style. Hell, I all but defecated on Avatar for its style-over-substance approach. But in the case of The Woman in Black the style is a crucial addition without being a crutch for other shortcomings. The film is sparse when it comes to things like dialogue, so instead, it makes effective use of more visual storytelling. Its small or sudden movements in static frames are incredibly effective at creating a tense, nerve-wracking mood.

The Woman in Black also has a commendable sense of pacing. While the opening scene is bold and disturbing, it takes awhile before you get into anything creepy again. Then, it's all a matter of building tension with occasional respites. It's notable that the film doesn't blow its wad too early (which I recently learned is about gambling, not ejaculation) but that the really BIG scare happens *before* the film's big final confrontation. Preferring to allow for feelings of possible resolution and catharsis in its final scenes, there's one fantastic jump scare about three quarters of the way through the movie that left me so jittery that I was scared to pick popcorn out of my teeth in case another one came along and I'd bite off my finger.

It wasn't even until the movie was over that I realized why I appreciated it as much as I did. Lately, it seems like any kind of movie about a ghost or a haunting follows the same idea. With movies like Paranormal Activity and even in the olde timey-themed An American Haunting, it was the same structure of a family... in a house... with a ghost. There's bound to be someone who's skeptical about the situation. Then an exorcist gets brought in and things either get wrapped up or you get a twisty violent ending. With A Woman in Black, however, you get a lot of the same tropes (stuff moving by "itself", creepy sounds) but you get to see a man facing them alone. There's no Ouija board, there's no mystical expert, it's just a single man, trying to provide for his family, stumbling across a horrific set of circumstances that put his family in the crosshairs of a malevolent, violent, spiritual entity. After that, it's just a question of how you wrap it up, and as I've mentioned already, the movie, like this review, has been wrapped up nicely.

3 comments:

  1. Best description of those toys EVER!

    You have a way with words, Dylangence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And Daniel Radcliffe? Not a word! How did he do?

    ReplyDelete
  3. As for the man himself, I thought that he was well-suited to what he was doing. I tried to stay away from commenting on it because anything I could come up with was Harry Potter-centric, or saying something about how 'Daniel "Don't Call Me Harry Potter" Radcliffe demonstrated that he has chops to carry his own movie.' I just didn't feel strongly enough about any of it to bother saying anything.

    ReplyDelete