Skip to main content

It's sort of Charles Foster Kane meets The Munsters or something.

The Haunting
(1999)

(SPOILERS) I somehow expected time wasn’t going to improve The Haunting miraculously, but returning to it rather underlines the idea that Jan De Bont somehow just got lucky with his first foray into directing – and, to an extent second – while everything subsequently proved him rather tragically incompetent. To such an extent, he effectively retired from the business after his fifth film. The Haunting suggests not only that he didn’t have the faintest clue how to make a scary movie, but that he wasn’t even trying. Or about as much as the makers of Scary Movie.

That said, it isn’t just that De Bont seems to have zero affinity for establishing atmosphere or eliciting tension and fear. Pretty much every aspect of The Haunting is misconceived, from David Self’s screenplay, to the ridiculously expensive sets – ridiculously expensive sets that only ever look like ridiculously expensive sets – to the appalling CGI that’s fatally relied on at every turn as a means to “terrify” the audience. Obviously, De Bont was a go-to cinematographer before he became a director (for the likes of Paul Verhoeven and John McTiernan), so you’d at least expect his movies to look good. They don’t tend to though. There’s a kind of spartan, empty quality that comes from not really knowing how to realise the core material. Caleb Deschanel was pencilled in to lens the picture, but left a week into the shoot – probably wisely – to be replaced by Roland Emmerich’s cinematographer Karl Walter Lindenlaub. You’d be hard pressed to note any kind of stylistic acumen here, aside from the occasional deep focus shot.

Despite the title, DreamWorks wasn’t remaking the MGM film but rather re-adapting Shirley Jackson’s novel (The Haunting of Hill House), at the behest of studio co-founder Steven Spielberg. Obviously, the Berg had a good track record with spooky goings on, having at very least ghost – ahem – directed Tobe Hooper’s Poltergeist. He roped Stephen King in to write the adaptation, but they had differences of opinion. Instead, David Self did as was asked of him, which involved some frankly baffling decisions that come across as change for the sake of change. Reportedly, King and Spielberg disagreed on the latter’s wish to make the characters heroic. So… how does one assess Liam Neeson’s hilariously named Dr David Marrow being utterly clueless about the supernatural, enacting an experiment in which his subjects believe they’re part of an insomnia study but whereby he’s actually testing their fear response (while simultaneously not believing in the house’s spook-tastic properties).

It makes the movie a mess from the first, since the focus is blandly confused. Add to that Neeson at his most plank-tastic, and one of the leads just seems like a dick. Catherine Zeta-Jones, as the movie’s version of lesbian Theo is also pretty nondescript, dressed to impress and announcing herself as bisexual (what was intrinsic to the psychological conflict first time round now just seems cynical). Lili Taylor’s brief flirtation with big-budget fare initially seems like it may pay off, with an effective if overcooked early scene where a cameoing Virginia Madsen establishes Nell’s isolation from the world, but Taylor’s soon submerged by the abysmal on-the-nose writing as she responds to CG cherubs and variously being scared silly (“I like this house”), an unnecessary connection to the house (she’s the daughter of its builder Hugh Crain’s second wife), and a hilariously half-assed response to Owen Wilson being decapitated (“Oh no” – oh yes, Lili). Wilson at least seems to permitted to improv a few decent lines (“There’s some good hallways that way”), but there’s no way he can singlehandedly wrestle the proceedings into watchable order.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of The Haunting is that it’s a Steven Spielberg production yet he elected not to retain his executive producer credit. IMDB’s trivia section would have you believe both that he was so disgusted by the finished film that he had his name taken off it and that he was rumoured to have directed some scenes and been heavily involved in post-production. It seems unlikely that both are true. There’s certainly little sign that anyone with an eye for scares has attempted to salvage the picture. And with regard to his name not being on it, well, he went uncredited on Small Soldiers too. You can certainly believe he’d not want to be associated with this dreck, though. Particularly since he appears to have been instrumental in approving its divergent – and hopeless – content compared to the book/ previous version. Get this: it appears that Hugh Crain tortured and killed a number of orphans, burning their bodies in the super-size fireplace (for Eleanor to find) so providing him with a spook family-in-residence.

It’s a particularly grisly backstory, and one wonders just what possessed Spielberg, so to speak, that he thought it was appropriate for a family horror flick? As it turns out, it has almost zero impact, because the picture fails to offer any level of unsettling elements. Still, though: “Steven felt we needed to deliver the goods for modern audiencescommented Self, explaining that he’s the kind of dad who’ll be inspired by the disturbing connotations of the impression his daughter’s face makes on a silk sheet (“We need a scene where there’s a spirit of the child in the sheets!”). Nice.

It appears the Berg hasn’t got the spook element out of his system, as he ditched a Turn of the Screw inspired project called Haunted three years ago that had Juan Carlos Fresnadillo attached (Mike Flanagan’s second season of The Haunting of Hill House, notably, is based on the Henry James novel), and has since enlisted Alexandre Aja to make an interactive haunted house movie. Which sounds exactly the kind of out-of-touch idea a once zeitgeist filmmaker would come up with to prove he’s relevant. The kind of guy who’d make Ready Player One. It’ll probably turn out to be every bit as good as De Bont’s The Haunting.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.