All everyone has been talking about for the past few week is director/writer David Robert Mitchell’s film “It Follows”. The reviews have been unanimously positive, and anyone I’ve asked has been wild about it. The film’s promotional campaign has given little away in terms of the plot, making the urge to actually go and see the movie nearly undeniable.
It’s clear from the opening shot that Mitchell is a director with a flair for atmosphere. The film is set in a deafeningly peaceful Michigan suburb, the air is thick with late 70’s/early 80’s nostalgia. The film is a love letter to those B-grade VHS tapes you used to watch at sleepovers, the result being staying awake all night with your friends, huddled in fear. The hair raising electronic score (that evokes a similarity to Nicholas Winding Refn’s “Drive”) completes the time period that Mitchell is so enamored with while simultaneously keeping the viewer on the edge of their seat.
Mitchell’s concern for aesthetic and atmosphere dominates the film; to discuss the plot of “It Follows” in detail actually exposes the films weaknesses. The protagonist Jay (Maika Monroe), a beautiful college student, makes the very fatal mistake of hooking up with her newest fling (played by Jake Weary). She wakes up after, tied to a wheelchair, where she’s informed she is now the host of a curse that will continue to haunt her until she passes it along to someone else, through sexual intercourse. The ‘curse’, we’re told, could be in the form of potentially anyone, even Jay’s loved ones. But beyond being told that she will be followed, we’re not left with any other information.
It’s clear from the get go that the premise is an allegory for the transmission of Sexually Transmitted Diseases. But Mitchell makes no efforts to really explore this idea; it’s not just the characters who don’t know what’s going on, but the audience as well. Clumsily rendered interactions with Jay and her band of friends as they attempt to battle ‘it’ expose that this is more of a half-baked idea than commentary on the sexual revolution. This is a film less concerned with plot, and more concerned with visual storytelling.
And that’s where the film succeeds, and earns all of the acclaim. The set pieces, consisting of typical suburban houses, tree lined streets, abandoned buildings and outdated television sets and outfits, photographed by cinematographer Mike Gioulakis evoke a dreamlike, almost ethereal, mood. It’s gorgeous; one could get lost in it, but staring too long proves dangerous. The paranoia and horror grows slowly through the narrative, and suddenly the dream Mitchell and his team have created becomes an inescapable nightmare. Much like Jay, we as the audience are left looking out of our peripherals in fear of even the tiniest sound or sight of movement. Every creak, every passerby has us guessing: “Is ‘it’ here? Or am I just being paranoid?”
If only the characters were as engrossing as the beautiful visuals. Much of what’s lacking is any sort of emotional attachment the audience needs to build in these kinds of movies. Yes, characters are disposal, ‘a dime a dozen’ when it comes to the world of horror, but why should we be hoping these people make it out of this alive? The destruction of the visceral, beautiful dream we get sucked into is far more interesting, and devastating, than the potential loss of any of the main characters.
Grade: C-
No comments:
Post a Comment