Skip to main content

I think my mother put a curse on us.

Hereditary
(2018)

(SPOILERS) Well, the Hereditary trailer's a very fine trailer, there's no doubt about that. The movie as a whole? Ari Aster's debut follows in the line of a number of recent lauded-to-the-heavens (or hells) horror movies that haven't quite lived up to their hype (The Babadook, for example). In Hereditary's case, there’s no doubting Ari Aster's talent as a director. Instead, I'd question his aptitude for horror.



Or rather, his aptitude for horror when it's overtly identifiable as such. Because, when Hereditary is focussing on a dysfunctional family with unsettling, possibly uncanny or even supernatural elements percolating around the edges of the frame, it's tremendously effective; the phrase "glacial pacing" seems to have been designed with Aster in mind. When it decides to double down on this being a full-blown horror movie, it starts to fall apart, alternately betraying itself as predictable or ridiculous, and has to rely on Aster the director provocatively kindling dread and disturbance as a counterbalance to the misjudged extremities of his own screenplay.


Even in the early scenes, however, there's a feeling Aster is too in thrall to an identifiable horror pedigree. The picture's sound design is often highly impressive, particularly in its assembly of offscreen sounds one can't quite contextualise or those all-important tongue clicks as punctuation points, but there's also an over-reliance on an ominously persistent heartbeat effect that ends up feeling a little cheap, so pervasive is it. I began trying to envision the scenes without this amped-up atmosphere, half-wondering if they wouldn't have been the more effective for it.


That may be telling. Aster told Empire magazine "I never really wanted to be a horror director; there's a part of me that resists it". I can entirely see that, as the movie's standout scenes don't require the genre bracket for their success. Both focus on Toni Collette's Annie Graham, gradually unravelling in the wake of the death of the mother she became estranged from and then in quick succession the daughter (Milly Shapiro's Charlie) who has been horrifically and bizarrely killed in an auto accident (not since Michael Caine in The Hand has the loss of body mass wavered so strongly between shock and unintentional hilarity; while it’s surely the case that the director intended the picture to carry a darkly humorous streak – I’ve seen it said he finds The Shining very funny, and rightly so – I’m not sure that was his objective in that scene). 


Collette's performance, powerhouse and bowdlerising all in her way, is the glue that holds Hereditary together, at least until she's no longer present enough to insulate it. We observe Annie's retreat into a controllable world of miniatures from the first, one also providing clues to there being something terribly wrong with the family (what kind of self-deluded offspring doesn't think it's horrendously weird to make a model of gran baring her teat to suckle her grandchild… although, what kind of self-denying husband – Gabriel Byrne's Steve – doesn’t draw the considerable line at a diorama of their decapitated daughter).


The first scene that really made me take notice was Annie visiting the bereavement support group, where she goes from not wanting to speak to unleashing a torrent of astonishing and shocking admissions – all of which are far more effective than Aster subsequently deciding to show the astonishing and shocking, in order to up the ante. On the one hand, it’s a breathless gasp of exposition that could be argued as ungainly, but on the other, Collette’s delivery renders the monologue entirely compelling, and its unwholesome nature and the stunned reactions of the group make it also rather funny. 


Later, we’re treated to another monologue from Annie, in what may be the scene of the movie, featuring as it does and uncomfortably silent evening meal (prepared by Steve, who has just borne witness to Annie's carnage-in-miniature depiction of Charlie's demise), broken by firstborn Peter (Alex Wolff of Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle) asking mom how she is. The suppressed vitriol spewing forth is another tour de force from Collette, and Wolff's stunned response is, in its own way, just as powerful. 


These domestic tribulations are entirely riveting, and one can readily see Steve's desire 
not to face ideas that are just that bit too far-fetched, even to the extent that they will be the death of him (at an early stage I wondered if he might be in on it, owing to his curiously keyed "Already?" reaction to the news of the desecrated grave). Certainly, knowing Annie was poised to set his family alight during a somnambulant episode must have taken its toll. Nevertheless, one can't help but find certain structural elements a little unlikely. Sure, Annie is in denial, as much as Steve in her own way, but her lack of curiosity felt a little… Well, all her mother's handy photo albums lying waiting to show exactly what she was up to when she needed a clue. A good thing for the story she didn't feel curious beforehand. 


More damaging is a growing sense of over-familiarity regarding the course Aster charts. He has cited Rosemary's Baby as an influence, and that's very evident, but one can also see other instances of the innocent dupe ending up a sacrifice (or vassal), such as The Wicker Man and its more recent part-homage Kill List. Even The Witch, from the same producer. I was more convinced of Aster's credentials when he was merely suggestive, prior to laying it on with a trowel. Once the implied becomes literal, so the thematic content, be it inter-generational familial abuse or latent sociopathy (the demon child sub-genre), loses some of its edge. 


The final act felt all too predictable in going for OTT moments rather than tonally appropriate ones (I say that, but US audiences obviously felt short changed of such obvious scares, giving it a D+ grade). In succession, there's Steve's immolation, Annie running along ceilings and gruesomely garrotting herself, Peter jumping out of a window in the spirit of The Exorcist before reanimating as Paimon/Charlie, various naked old cultees milling about in corners of rooms and on the grounds, and not-so-friendly-after-all spiritualist Joan – Ann Dowd: I didn't recall her spoilered presence in the trailer, but there are signs pointing to her as a bad 'un from her first scene – explaining exactly what has just happened for any joes not paying attention (which looked as if it had been dubbed in post). 


The failings of the climax underline the merits of the less-is-more approach. Anyone can effectively prey on fears of being alone in bed in the dark at night and seeing things in the darkness; it's the scenes in the bright open spaces of the school that impress. The same is true of the too-slick supernatural apports (the spirit writing, drawing and glass moving all immediately scream "effect"); Aster's on firmer ground when calling on a simple image (a reflection of a face in a cabinet, the eerie lighting effect of a "spirit" on the move).


Mark Kermode was irritated by the use of "A new generation's The Exorcist" to describe Hereditary, not because he didn't think it was good (he hadn't seen it at that point), but because comparisons to that classic are rarely on point. He seemed to be invoking content rather than resonance in is his little rant, but I took the comparison wholly in the latter sense. And on that level, I don't think it can hold a candle. I'm a fairly easy dupe for scary scenes in movies, so I tend to look for something a bit more impactful as a sign of lasting quality. Hereditary isn't nearly as unnerving as William Friedkin’s picture because ultimately, it diffuses its dread. The performances are uniformly excellent, Aster's direction highly impressive, but in the end the picture feels like it has emptied a bag of familiar tropes over its subtler ideas, diluting its potential in the process.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

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.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

I can’t be the worst. What about that hotdog one?

Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022) (SPOILERS) It would have been a merciful release, had the title card “ The End ”, flashing on screen a little before the ninety-minute mark, not been a false dawn. True, I would still have been unable to swab the bloody dildoes fight from my mind, but at least Everything Everywhere All at Once would have been short. Indeed, by the actual end I was put in mind of a line spoken by co-star James Wong in one of his most indelible roles: “ Now this really pisses me off to no end ”. Or to put it another way, Everything Everywhere All at Once rubbed me up the wrong which way quite a lot of most of the time.

We’ve got the best ball and chain in the world. Your ass.

Wedlock (1991) (SPOILERS) The futuristic prison movie seemed possessed of a particular cachet around this time, quite possibly sparked by the grisly possibilities of hi-tech disincentives to escape. On that front, HBO TV movie Wedlock more than delivers its FX money shot. Elsewhere, it’s less sure of itself, rather fumbling when it exchanges prison tropes for fugitives-on-the-run ones.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

So, you’re telling me that NASA is going to kill the President of the United States with an earthquake?

Conspiracy Theory (1997) (SPOILERS) Mel Gibson’s official rehabilitation occurred with the announcement of 2016’s Oscar nominations, when Hacksaw Ridge garnered six nods, including Mel as director. Obviously, many refuse to be persuaded that there’s any legitimate atonement for the things someone says. They probably weren’t even convinced by Mel’s appearance in Daddy’s Home 2 , an act of abject obeisance if ever there was one. In other circles, though, Gibbo, or Mad Mel, is venerated as a saviour unsullied by the depraved Hollywood machine, one of the brave few who would not allow them to take his freedom. Or at least, his values. Of course, that’s frequently based on alleged comments he made, ones it’s highly likely he didn’t. But doesn’t that rather appeal to the premise of his 23-year-old star vehicle Conspiracy Theory , in which “ A good conspiracy theory is an unproveable one ”?

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .

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.