Sunday, July 10, 2011
The Last? Pffft.
I believe there is some sort of unspoken convention when it comes to making contemporary horror films that I'm sure a lot of you have seen as well- the revered or reviled 'shaky cam'. Relied on to offer up a more 'realistic' atmosphere, it can go either way from the effective ('Blair Witch Project', [REC], 'Paranormal Activity') to the not so effective and quite frankly, annoying (any of the later Romero 'Dead' entries... sorry George). Another device that is commonly used to promote a film is the association it has with a prominent figure in genre film making, in this case, unknown director Daniel Stamm's 'The Last Exorcism' has Eli Roth to thank for the fact it had been released on the big screen rather than simply being dashed straight to DVD. Usually when you hear about something like this, you may assume that the film really ain't all that and it was used as a simple ploy to make a little more money on the side. While 'The Last Exorcism' won't cater to every genre fiend's taste, I must give kudos to Roth for making sure this film got a good look.
Okay, who is it this time? Pazuzu? Beezelbub? Ann Coulter?
Believe you me, this is a film you have seen many times, just with different actors and directors, and perhaps different demons. Hell, many of the possession/exorcism sequences will harken to other films, some superior, others... well... let's not go there. Given the mockumentary approach, there is a sense of realism that must be given credit, as well as the reletively unknown cast, the possessed lead actress who plays Nell being one of them (we are treated to some outstanding physical acting on her part. If there was any CGI enhancement, none of it really stood out, at least to me). By the way, I know I'm not the only one who has noticed this, but have you ever noticed that demons almost always seem to be after women? Almost all of the stories and films I have encountered usually involve the demonic possession of a female character rather than a male. Why is this? Let me be an intellectual for a moment, I promise to be brief.
I think the reasoning behind females being more suseptible to demonic menace reflects how the patriarchial society sees women- oh don't say I'm being too paranoid, look around you. Despite the fantastic advances women have made in today's society, there are still club-weidling bigwigs disguised as modern men who believe that women are not human, but things, UNKNOWN things. What happens when we encounter something we do not fully understand- we fear it and we react to this fear by spreading rumours, nurturing hatred and ignorance. Additionally, when it comes to works of fiction like the Bible (oh yeah, I'm going there, baby), when we look at the chapter of Genesis, it is Eve who is supposedly responsible for the suffering that humanity endures after she and Adam are cast out of Eden, a place of unimaginable paradise, never mind the fact that it was the Devil, whose power is far beyond human comprehension, much less the comprehension of the first human female who, like Adam, doesn't know what is right and wrong and was only given a crytpic warning about the apple tree. Why couldn't God say "Look, honey, don't take anything from that tree because you will be tempted by my greatest enemy because if you do, you and your boyfriend will be removed from this lovely place and be forced to endure pain after pain after pain." Another example- the story of Pandora. She was warned not to open the box containing wonders beyond comprehension, without being told that if she did it, she would unleash unending calamity on humanity. Another? Cassandra- she had the gift of foresight, but society (led by men, surprise surprise) didn't believe her warnings until it was too late, THEN, she was deemed to be evil. Going back to my point, women seem to be the blame for everything, and one of the ways of disguising this sadly inbuilt uncertainty is to tell tales of which the female is the cause of calamity.
Sorry, I really didn't mean to get on a high horse there, but honestly, think about all of those things, heck, conduct some of your own research then think about how demonic hauntings seem to center around females rather than males.
BACK TO THE MOVIE!!!!!
For the better part of the movie, Nell's possession is an object of doubt- she is afflicted with a dysfuntional family situation plus mental illness- when you think about that, all of her contortions, speaking in tongues and profane behaviour could very well be the trait of a mentally unstable person... but then there are other things that psychology and physiology cannot explain. Is she or isn't she? This is for the audience and the characters to speculate throughout the film, but let me assure you, there is a lot of freaky goings on to keep you entertained and to keep the characters uncertain.
Demonic possession or back pain?
Another notch on this one's belt is that even though there is bloodshed and general nastiness, this film is more about questioning what you didn't see rather than examining what you did (given Eli Roth, who had thus far made a career out of bathing us in gore and blood has had a hand in making this see the light of day still surprises me :D) all of which makes up for the fact this film is for the most part predictable and nothing new. Rather than focusing on what we do know, let us look at what we don't- the best advise I can give is to just watch it and enjoy it, but I certainly wouldn't hold it against you if you read between the lines.
Labels:
2010,
daniel stamm,
mockumentary,
possession week,
thriller
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment