Skip to main content

All you can do is pass it along to someone else.

It Follows
(2015)

(SPOILERS) David Robert Mitchell’s unstoppable horror has received rounded acclaim, even embedding itself in Sight and Sound’s hallowed Top 20 of 2015 list. It’s certainly an effective, confidently-directed latest incarnation of the relentless boogeyman, heavily indebted to John Carpenter (complete with retro-synth score from Disasterpeace) but also bringing its own psychosexual component (a bit like Cronenberg but shorn of the grue). In other words, it’s no wonder Kim Newman loved It Follows.


To the extent that there’s nothing new under the sun, I’m not entirely sure the kudos heaped on the picture in terms of its exploration of sex and death are entirely deserved, however. It Follows is essentially raking over coals. But Mitchell is so sure of himself in technique and execution, taking a leaf out of Carpenter’s aforementioned book with his widescreen lensing and long lingering set ups (of empty Detroit suburbs), allowing the space itself to become threatening in its own sweet time, usually when “It” idles into frame, or merely through someone looking for “It” to no avail, that it’s almost impossible not to be won over.


The world Mitchell envisages is hermetic, isolated and claustrophobic, even when its protagonist Jay (Maika Monroe, following last year’s acclaimed genre effort The Guest, which was also indebted to ‘70s/ ‘80s cinema and synths) isn’t stuck in a room without an easy exit. It’s the knowing exteriors that most evoke the dream logic Mitchell’s aiming for, though, where it’s impossible to evade your pursuer no matter how far you run. As Newman notes in his review, It Follows is curiously absent of adults, adding to the cumulative sense of divorce from anything approaching a normative environment.


While much of the attention has focussed on the means by which It gathers victims, apparently this notion came later in Mitchell’s conception of the picture. It’s a classic horror trope, of course; teenagers having sex spells death, so embodying that force has a certain inspired literalness to it. With that inevitably come readings regarding STDs and AIDS (“Someone gave it to me, and I passed it on to you…”) complete with the fear of a faceless virus that exists anywhere and everywhere (“It can look like anyone, but there’s only one of it”). Then there are the post-infection consequences belying the truth (“I don’t feel any different”, comments Paul) And eventually, no matter what precautions you take to survive (by fucking as much as possible, the ultimate act of feeling alive) it will encroach on you again. All potently familiar, then, but it’s in the execution that Mitchell makes an impact.


And much of what really works here is also about the observation of character, as opposed to the mechanics of the monster or why the cast haven’t watched Scream and its sequels, so continue to do really stupid things despite having clear rules to obey (that should be a relief in a way, although those who claimed Scream was going to change the horror map forever were mostly writing puff pieces rather than devout believers).


Mitchell makes some interesting choices that break with the expected for such fare, some of which work and some of which are less successful. As so often happens, Jay tells others of her waking nightmare, and they either don’t believe her or tell her not to worry. More surprising is that It ends up manifesting to her friends, who then no longer doubt her delusions. On one level, this is a bold move; now the isolated teen has friends rallying around and attempting to defend her. On another, the rules by which this wraith operates no longer seem quite so comprehensible or overpowering, leading to an over-stoked climax that doesn’t make much sense in either the planning our outcome (this may be why no one actually discusses the plan aloud; Mitchell knows it isn’t much cop, but he can’t come up with anything better).


But the means by which archetypes are highlighted in interesting new ways is striking. There’s pretty Jay (Gwen Stefani-pretty; Monroe, who gives a mesmerising performance, gets that a lot) who will have no trouble finding a guy to pass It on to. Says Jake Weary’s Hugh, the guy who impregnates her with “It”, then drugs her and ties her up so she can have a really close look at her ardent pursuer; one wonders how long he spent figuring out this modus operandi. Like the classic one-night stand guy, Hugh is only interested in his own satisfaction (she should sleep with someone as soon as possible, as “If it kills you, it will come for me, you understand?”)


Platonic nerd childhood best friend Paul (Keir Gilchrist) nurses an eternal flame for Jay, and is more than prepared to be pursued to the death if it means he can have sex with the object of his desire, but Jay is interested in handsome Greg (Daniel Zovatto), whom Jay’s sister Kelly (Lili Sepe) fancies. There’s also Yara (Olivia Luccardi), focussed on her clamshell reader and seemingly not especially into anyone, so she may well survive longest post-credits.


Jay’s congress with first Greg and then Paul is less about passing the buck than seeking some kind of protection, but she is nevertheless knowing about what she is doing, just less ruthlessly so than Hugh. The closing sight of her and Paul walking hand-in-hand, having trapped herself with someone she isn’t attracted to for the sake of peace of mind, is revealed as a slow death itself (curiously both are wearing black and white in the last scene); inevitably the struggle and cycle to feel alive will have to begin again.


I liked the early scenes where Jay and her gang decide to track down Hugh; it makes for a refreshingly pro-active approach, one that is abandoned once the need for characters (Greg) to disbelieve resurfaces. But the rules at points feel a little Gremlins for a picture taking itself so seriously; an interesting moment comes when it appears Jay will swim out to a boat and have a threesome with the men on board, but clearly she decides against it (unless It made short work of them). Yet such conjecture raises the prospect of mockery, like that scene in Gremlins 2; does this thing really just walk everywhere? What if you hop on a plane and travel to the other side of the world? Will you have respite for several years (or will It hop on a plane too?)


And, while It’s revealing itself as interactive with those uninfected makes for an original twist, it doesn’t entirely make sense. Earlier we see the thing seemingly not interacting with others (in corridors, in the Jay’s house in the form of a giant), but now It’s visible in its actions, can punch Paul and have a rug thrown over it. Most bizarrely, it seems it can be shot.


Maybe this is Mitchell referencing the unstoppable Carpenter “Shape”, such that it will inevitably resurface in the final reel, but there’s a lot of difference between starting with something supernatural and Carpenter finishing with the intimation that something may be. I wondered too at the different approach the thing took; the attack on Greg made most sense in terms of the kind of creature this is, an incubus/succubus that feeds on sexual activity, and which will suck the life essence from you (most queasily while appearing as Greg’s mother; "It looks like people you love, just to hurt you"). But this contrasts with the more typical “crazy” monster that snaps the leg of the first victim we see backwards, or starts throwing stuff around a swimming pool.


Inevitably, there’s talk of a sequel, in which Jay traces the source of the curse, and Mitchell who is “personally not that interested in where it comes from” is also open to the possibility.  I tend to think he’s better treating It Follows as a one-off; once you start unravelling or deducing, 9 times out 10 you diminish the mythology. And you also run the risk of making it seem like just another movie series. Perhaps It will become a one-off anthology series come the second sequel, before reverting to increasingly pedestrian follow-ups with the third.




Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism