Like many people, I do like going to the cinema – it can turn what is simply something to watch into an event, an occasion to be shared with friends or enjoyed purely on your own. If only the cinematic experience was always like this, unfortunately there are a few aspects which put me off going to the cinema more often. One is simply the price – it can cost as much as a Blu-ray disc (which I could watch over and over again whenever I wanted to). In other words, I would go far more regularly if it simply cost less. Another reason is the lack of the theatricality that used to be such a part of the whole experience – no plush carpets, no velvety sofas and no dramatic drawing back of the curtain to reveal the silver screen. The now ubiquitous multiplex has no glamour – where once we had palaces of Arabian splendour, or the Jazzy lines of Art Deco to sweep us to our seats, they are now all alike – identical warehouses, shoe boxes with small screens, not much larger than those found in many living rooms.
Not that I remember the age of glamour of course, but I do at least remember a pause before the main feature and usherettes with trays selling ice-creams (the last gesture towards movie going as an extravagance, a night out, something special) before the now anonymous production-line delivery of our entertainment. Without wanting to put too much of a downer on the idea of a trip to the movies, the final reason for my reluctance to go more often is the serial disappointment I get during and after the event – the feeling that I should have simply held onto my money and put it towards a film on disc that I know I’d enjoy.
To contradict what I’ve just said, seeing a good film at the cinema can be an amazing experience, well worth the price of entry, and when it is an amazing experience, it goes a long way to negate those accumulated disappointments. It has the power to excite you, move you, shock you or make you laugh – whatever the intended effect of the film, the viewing of it in a cinema is something quite different to watching it at home in your living room. It offers a rare sense of shared experience, as though you as part of a group were there to witness something quite special and it can leave you with a warm feeling for days if not weeks afterwards.
I was a little wary about seeing The Woman in Black. I had no preconceptions about the story, I had not read Susan Hill’s book, nor seen the previous TV film or hugely successful stage adaptation, yet there was a lot riding on this movie – would Daniel Radcliffe be any good in a grown up film, and as this was the first major release from the resurrected Hammer studios, would it do justice to the history of that studio?
The horror of this film is definitely in the gothic mode – it’s not the blood soaked gore of pointless torture, or the crazy men in masks running after stupid teenagers type of film (thank goodness!). This is the horror of the desolate countryside, strange villagers fearing a curse and a decayed, haunted house – so far, so Hammer! The mood from the beginning of this film is one of dark, cluttered rooms, wood panelling, rich buttoned up fabrics and the gloomier side of the Edwardian era. This style of the supernatural depends completely on mood, the slow building up of expectation and tension, and that is what this film does extremely well. The atmosphere is heavy and consistent, with the direction aided significantly by the quality of the production design, which is convincing throughout.
The story begins with Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) contemplating ending his life years after losing his wife during childbirth. His continuing state of depression has been affecting his work and when his boss sends him to deal with the estate of a recently deceased woman it is obviously his last chance to retain his job. It is the history of events surrounding the house of this woman that is the crux of this story. Throughout there are images of frilly Edwardian childhood, mechanical toys, tea sets and dolls; and the innocent paraphernalia of the nursery is increasingly used to creepy effect and provides plenty of shocks (which did give me goose bumps on a number of occasions). Of course all of this is part of the clichéd stock in trade of the traditional gothic movie, but when it is done well we remember just how effective such trappings can be. This point, coincidently, raises my main problem with this type of film – when compared to the 2005 BBC adaptation of Bleak House, which had equally impressive production values, sense of place and script writing, should films in the style of The Woman In Black be left to television companies to produce; and wasn’t this partly why Hammer fell from film production into television in the first place?
The Woman in Black herself is largely seen through dirty windows and in the shadowy passages of the house, or in the distance wrapped in mist and foliage. Unfortunately we do see her more closely later on in the film, which is a shame because her distance and half seen appearances are more effective than seeing the clear sight of her face, however briefly. Daniel Radcliffe is quite convincing as as the desperate Mr Kipps, although he is still too boyish for this role and in a few more years would suited the role better. His precarious emotional situation is tested by the woman in black while he tries to hold his life together as the mystery of why the children of the village are dying and the implication for his own son, who is due to visit, start to overwhelm him. The rocking chair (another old-style horror prop) is used to great effect but I found the dragging of the car out of the marsh, or more significantly, what was found there, to be the least convincing part of the film. The end of The Woman In Black, which is apparently different to the ending in the original book, was extremely satisfying – but whether you will find it satisfying or not will depend on your frame of mind.
Apparently the British theatrical release of this film had a number of cuts made so that it could be issued with a 12A certificate, evidently to take advantage of the teenage market that Daniel Radcliff and his Harry Potter connection would bring. Although it would be interesting to see the fuller version, I was satisfied with what I saw. From early on the atmosphere was there and it really felt like a Hammer Production (minus the wobbly sets, of course) – the main fault was that some of the scenes dragged a little, with no more reason to them but to build the atmosphere. This is the fifth offering from the new Hammer Films and by far the highest profile production to date (that said, Let Me In did quite well too) – if they can maintain this level of quality they could again claim this corner of the horror genre for themselves.
Link:- Hammer Films