The Random House dictionary defines an anthology as “a book or other collection of selected writings by various authors, usually in the same literary form, of the same period, or on the same subject”.
Anthologies are not, however, simply restricted to written works. Anthological series have been a staple of television since there was television, and, before that, radio. The most well known of these are, of course, “The Twilight Zone”, “The Outer Limits”, “Alfred Hitchcock Presents”, and “Tales From the Crypt”. Often, an anthology may also contain a host, narrator, or ongoing set of characters or story which acts as a bookend for the individual stories.
Anthologies in film, however, are far more rare. With the exception of the Neil Simon “Suite” movies, most of them tend to fall into the horror category. In the nineties, a number of independent films were made that are often mistaken as anthologies, but anthologies are, by definition, completely autonomous. Films like “Pulp Fiction”, “Go”, and “Four Rooms” are episodic, but not anthological. Anthological films also tend to be adapted from either tv series, like “Twilight Zone” or “Tales from the Darkside”, adapted from print, like “HP Lovecraft’s Necronomicon” (which is nearly unwatchable), or made to emulate an external source, such as “Creepshow” 1 and 2 (which I’ll get to later).
But recently, I found a rarity, the thoroughly original horror anthology, “V/H/S”. Not only that, but “V/H/S” is the first anthology film I know of to be shot in the first person.
First person films have grown in popularity over the last half decade. The movement began with “The Blair Witch Project”, but has been gaining in popularity films like “Cloverfield” and “Chronicle”, and with the works of Oren Peli, the man behind “Paranormal Activity”, “The Chernobyl Diaries”, and the tv series “The River”.
However, “V/H/S” is unique in being the first film to fall into both of these narrative types, and does so remarkably well.
The premise of “V/H/S” is that a gang of four punks who are being paid to make videos of committing pranks and vandalism are hired by their unknown benefactor to steal a video tape from a private home (while filming the theft). When they break into the home, they find a whole collection of tapes, and don’t know which one it is, so they start watching tapes to find out which one it is. This, of course, gives the vehicle for the anthology. What follows are a series of five short films, each one shot in the first person, with scenes of the initial story interweaved.
The only two things that all of these short films have in common is that they are all horror shorts, and they are all shot in first person. Other than that, the stories, characters, situations, and tones of each short could not be more different. This is one of the earmarks of a well-assembled anthology. Rod Serling would be proud.
The bookend story (titled “Tape 56”) sets itself, along with the general tone of the film, up well (I’ve already noted how they justify the filming by stating that they are paid for it). It does a nice, even natural, job of setting up the presentation of the other shorts, as well as taking advantage of the breaks to progress both it’s own story and the general feeling of dread and uneasiness throughout the film. The twists and turns of the story work really well, and make what is already a shutter-fest even creepier.
The first short, “Amateur Night”, is about a couple of douchebags and their hapless geeky sidekick, who they’ve armed with an eyeglasses camera, trying to pick up girls so that they can record themselves having sex with the girls. This is one of the best in the batch. The filmmakers flaunt their creativity and attention to detail well, not only in the course of the story as a whole, but in their consistency with maintaining the idea that the camera is in the one characters glasses: he takes them off, cleans them, sets them down, puts them on again, even drops them, all compounding to keep the audience in the world of the short. The filmmakers also deserve recognition for their use of physical and makeup effects over CGI, giving the film a much more tangible and visceral feel.
The second short, “Second Honeymoon”, was actually rather disappointing and much less original than any of the other shorts. This was, in fact, barely a horror story, and more a suspense story, derivative of “Dead On” (1994) and the American version of “Diabolique” (1996), both of which no film should ever want to be associated with. It also suffers the fatal flaw which tends to befall first person films, which is the question “Why the hell are they filming this?”
The third short, “Tuesday the 17th”, was, as you can guess, also associates itself with less-than-reputable fare. However, not in a derivative way, but as an interpretation of that data-oriented franchise who shall not be named. It does this, though, in a way which is both original, and ties itself back to the general concept.
The fourth short, “The Sick Thing That Happened To Emily When She Was Younger”, is, in my opinion, the most creative story in the anthology, and one of the most creative horror stories I’ve ever seen. Instead of someone filming with a camcorder of some kind, the entire film is seen as the desktop of someone’s laptop during a series of video chat conversations between the two main characters, one of whom (“Emily”) thinks that her house is haunted. The way in which the story is revealed and progresses uses this medium perfectly, and the twist is both brilliant and disturbing.
The fifth and final short, “10/31/98”, about four guys trying to find a halloween party, and, instead, stumbling into an exorcism in a haunted house, is the most fun of the shorts, and rounds out the anthology well. The filmmakers of this, in also being the cast, bring a degree of silliness to their story that lacked in any of the others. This is evident from the first moment of the short, where the character doing the filming, who must be at least 6’ tall, is dressing up in a giant teddy bear costume with the camera strapped to his head to be (as he later explains) a nanny cam. However, once the foursome enter the house, all bets are off. The effects are, unfortunately, uneven, as some of the CGI effects are more obvious and look less real than others; not to the point of being distracting, but noticeable.
Over all, “V/H/S” while being highly original, calls back to an era of horror filmmaking almost (but hopefully not) long forgotten that was fearless and bold, unforgiving and unrelenting. An era which birthed the careers of Wes Craven, Sam Raimi, and, lest we forget, Steven Spielberg.
More new horror films could take a few notes from “V/H/S”.
No comments:
Post a Comment