As I stated in the previous review there was
no reason to the supposedly scary monsters and scenarios, they simply happened
with no real build up or purpose. A good film will provide a context for its
scares; it’d be hard to imagine The Creature (From the Black Lagoon) randomly
showing up for an obligatory cameo, without any prior mention. And no, “Because
it’s Silent Hill” does not count as context. One of my favourite horror films
of all time, Jacob’s Ladder, heavily
utilized random, surreal imagery: but as the movie was an exploration of the mind
of an insane man, it all made sense. So yes, atmosphere and build up are vital;
which leads us rather nicely to Sinister…
I’ll admit I wasn’t particularly looking
forward to Sinister. Marketed as a jump scare flick of the same vein as Paranormal Activity and Insidious, the film appeared to be
another attempt to capitalise on an already oversaturated sub-genre. The principal people behind Sinister didn’t
inspire much faith either; taking up the director’s mantle was one Scott
Derrickson, the man behind Hellraiser:
Inferno and The Exorcism of Emily
Rose, he also co-wrote the film with C. Robert Cargill, best known for
voicing Carlyle on Spill.com. So I prepared myself for a film with lofty
ambitions and ideas, which it would utterly fail to capitalise on in favour of more
mainstream, predictable scares. And of course I was right; this is The Crusades of a Critic, not the Armond
White show you know.
Sinister follows true crime author Ellison
Oswalt (Ethan Hawke) and his obsessive investigation into a quadruple murder,
and a related missing person case. During the course of his investigation he
discovers a series of innocently labelled Super 8 reels (Lawn Work ’86, BBQ ’66
and Sleepy Time ’98), each of which
contain snuff footage; with humour like that, I’m surprised the perpetrator
isn’t writing for 2 Broke Girls. The
film opens with a rather unsettling sequence which involves a family being hung
from a tree. It’s grim, sombre and jarring, and sets the tone perfectly. The reels
are probably Sinister’s greatest asset: Super 8 films have a grainy quality (not
to mention lack of sound) which makes their content even eerier. I must single
out composer Christopher Young for creating some truly perturbing background
pieces – which I can only describe as occultist-aborigine-industrial - for the projector scenes; he’ll shortly be
receiving my bill for all the Xanax I needed.
It’s a simple set up, one which presents
the protagonist the threads of a mystery for them to attempt to unravel. But, because
of how personally invested Ellison becomes in solving the murders, it works,
and makes for compelling character based conflict. The increasing paranoia and
obsession of the protagonist, driving them toward a single goal, is a common
film trope and something which films like Rear
Window and Memento have explored
to great effect. It becomes apparent just how obsessed he is with his
investigation when it is revealed he has moved his family into the house where
the victims were killed, just mere months after the (unsolved) crime was
committed; which as far as brass balls go, is up there with Goldilocks.
 |
| This face appears in the nightmares of Bears everywhere |
We spend the majority of the first half of
Sinister alone with Ellison and the Super 8 reels, becoming as equally absorbed
as he is by the horror that’s unfolding on the projection screen. It’s in these
moments that we see Ellison becoming increasingly conflicted, as he wrestles
with the moral implications of using the information he uncovers for himself,
and is clearly warped by the mentally scaring imagery he is exposing himself
to. As the film progresses he becomes more and more reliant on alcohol,
implying that he either previously had an unhealthy drinking habit, or is
developing one. What makes the scenes so powerful is the sense of isolation: whilst
Ellison isn’t exactly alone in the traditional sense (his obnoxious family see to
that), he is alone in carrying the burden of what he uncovers.
In many regards, Sinister is reminiscent of
The Shining; Ellison is a well meaning but deeply flawed individual, struggling
with his demons and his desire to leave a legacy. Like The Shining’s Jack
Torrance, Ellison’s hubris is that his selfish desires become more important to
him than his own family and their safety. Similarly, Ellison’s obsession
actually averts a lot of the usual horror movie logic - “I think I’ll remain in
this dangerous haunted house, there has to be a reasonable explanation for that
gateway to hell” - allowing the movie to be carried by his personality flaws as
opposed to sheer stupidity and bad choices. Another commonality The Shining and Sinister share
is the quirky, almost dysfunctional, family dynamic. Whilst the family exchange
tender moments, they are clearly strained by having to constantly move around
for Ellison, who in turn is actually quite dismissive toward them.
The family’s key purpose is providing a
sense of conflict toward the irrationality of the protagonist. Matriarch Tracy
(Juliet Rylance), actually pulls Ellison up on a lot of his flaws (cumulating
in a great discussion regard their living in a crime scene), and provides a
more grounded view regarding his frustration with life. The children come
across as somewhat disturbed and withdrawn –possibly an act of foreshadowing
regarding the nature of the villain - especially son Trevor (Michael Hall
D'Addario) who suffers from night terrors, which is used for cheap jump scares
on exactly two occasions; including one particular moment that involves the
most ludicrous use of a cardboard box outside of Harry Houdini’s bedroom.
After such a strong first act the film
rather disappointingly begins to stagnate around the mid-way point, when more
of the story begins to unfold. Part of the problem is that with the film
relying heavily on psychological tropes, the story is only ever interesting when
it’s intentionally vague. Once Ellison goes from scrutinising the reels for
clues to being haunted by ghost children prancing around his house, like
they’re auditioning for The Mariinsky Ballet Company, the carefully crafted
tension and pacing really goes downhill.
Sinister suffers from the same issue responsible
for preventing Insidious achieving greatness. Both are slow building affairs
reliant on character and atmosphere, and both blow their load in their third
acts faster than Jim Levenstein in a lap dancing club staffed by FHM’s 100
sexiest women: becoming heavily steeped in supernatural elements completely
detrimental to the semi-realism prevalent in the first act. In Sinister it is
revealed that a child eating pagan deity - known as Bughuul – is responsible
for the murders by way of corrupting and influencing the children. This is a
major third act revelation, but considering the missing children are the common
link between all five cases, and the way Bughuul appears on the films
suggesting he couldn’t possibly be the one filming, the ‘twist’ was as
surprising as Mario learning that the princess is in another castle.
The whole ‘the children are the killers’
shtick was probably intended to be shocking, given Humanity’s inherent belief
in the innocence of children. But personally, I would have found Bughuul
actually committing the murders to be far scarier. Yeah sure, it’s not terribly
original, but just look at Bughuul, he looks like an unholy amalgamation of
Voldermort and ‘Helena’ era Gerard Way; he’s horrifying! Killer children are
just a pointless avenue for films to explore; I live near a council estate, I’m
already terrified of children. Bughuul not being the killer takes a lot of
power away from the film’s scariest idea: that art –something extremely
fundamental to human culture- can serve as a pawn piece for evil, literally, in
Bughuul’s case, allowing him to ‘imprint’ himself onto his victims via
paintings, photos, drawings and videos. But to survive, you only really need to
avoid children; Bughuul seemingly has no real power, other than the ability to
convince minors to do debased things in front of a camera.
I have mixed feelings regarding Sinister.
On the one hand, it’s an interesting, if derivative, premise and has a
fantastically built up villain and atmosphere. But ultimately, it squanders all
of this when it enters jump scare territory, not that I have anything against
jump scares, but here the majority of them have no substance and are employed
rather lazily (loud noises, camera close ups, etc); though I was caught out by THAT
lawnmower moment. The scariest moments in the entire film are spoilt in the
trailer, because they needed to find something visceral from a mostly subtle
movie to showcase, right? On first viewing the bleak ending seems rather predictable
and hackneyed, but it gains an emotional significance upon rewatching when you’re
able to see every pitfall Ellison falls into as he heads toward his inevitable doom.
It’s still worth seeing, if only because of its strong first act and James
Ransone as Deputy So-And-So:he manages to somehow be both the comic relief and
the straightman. Watching James interact with Ethan Hawke is like imagining watching
First Blood with the role of Sheriff Teasle being played by Les Dawson.
 |
| Just imagine Teasle doing the sex maniac joke |
Comments
Post a Comment