Skip to main content

No, they have to make a choice of their own freewill. Otherwise, the system doesn’t work.

The Cabin in the Woods
(2011)

(SPOILERS) Drew Goddard and the recently cancelled Joss Whedon attested that The Cabin in the Woods, bashed out over an intensive weekend, represented a critique of and love letter to the horror movie. Such a mission statement shouldn’t be that much of a surprise from Whedon, the guy who made meta a badge of pride throughout his various pop-culture-littered TV shows and movies. But it’s as a consequence of that very element that The Cabin in the Woods also very easily invites another layer of reading; indeed, not to read it this way invites a response that’s more towards the typically shallow end of Whedon’s favoured pool, rather than the slightly more substantial one Goddard tends to prefer.

Hadley: I just think it would have been cooler with a merman.

With regard to the horror riff, though, Goddard and Whedon proffer a Lovecraftian concoction, wherein the typical teens/students go to the typical cabin in the woods (The Evil Dead, basically) but rapidly discover things are not quite what they seem. They have been selected as offerings to the Ancient Ones, in order to sate the latters’ appetites and stave off the destruction of all humanity. Similar rituals take place across the world (I’d be interested to see how the English one goes down. Perhaps something involving Edward Woodward; we’re shown one based on J-horror and there’s reference to a Stockholm ritual). In America, it takes the form of your classic (or bog-standard) horror movie, in which the jock (athlete), the slut (whore), the stoner (fool) and the brain (scholar) are systematically dispatched, with the pure cardboard scream queen (virgin) an optional extra but permitted to survive.

The Director: What’s happening to you is part of something bigger. Something older than anything known.

This is an effective set up, albeit obviously in the lineage of Scream’s commentary on genre tropes. Whedon and Goddard are able to throw some shade on torture porn too (albeit not dwelling on any of the offending gruesomeness, since neither attests to be a fan), along with the affinity the genre has for transgressive behaviour (it’s not a little ironic to hear Whedon claiming sensitivity over blurring titillation and degradation in the scene where topless Anna Hutchinson’s Jules – the whore – is murdered as she and Chris Hemsworth’s Curt – the athlete – as are making out. Whedon, after all, is alleged to have insisted on the Flash falling “amusingly” on top of Wonder Woman in the Justice League reshoots, becoming most irate when Gal Gadot protested this was vulgar and degrading. Notable too, given Whedon’s rumoured affairs on the set of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, that Dana is having a relationship with her college professor).

Marty: Why is Jules suddenly a celeb-tard and since when does Curt pull this alpha-male bullshit?

Nevertheless, there’s fun to be had in the pursuit and retreat from tropes; the parties are drugged/gassed to ensure they conform to stereotypes, and it is only thanks to the resistance that comes through the super-strength weed habit of Marty (Fran Kranz, previously of Whedon’s Dollhouse) that the game plan is disrupted. Although, while this is presented as a reversal, I’m sure I’ve seen the “stoner wins out” as something of a trope in itself. At very least, the least-likely guy in the room proving the most effective when called to action is something Goddard clearly has an affinity for (Bad Times at the El Royale doubling down on this). The geek-chic quipping is all Whedon, though.

The cast are all reliably proficient, although Hemsworth – he won Thor and Red Dawn on the strength of his work here – Kranz and Kristen Connolly (as virgin Dana) are the standouts. Curiously, or perhaps it isn’t, Whedon and Goddard avoid drawing attention to another trope, that of killing off the token black character (Jesse Williams’ Holden McCrea). There are lots of raves about Sigourney Weaver’s cameo, but I don’t think she’s anything special (and I’m a Sigourney fan).

Hadley: These fucking zombies. Remember when you could just throw a girl into a volcano?

It’s refreshing how little time Goddard wastes; he’s straight in with the set-up, whereby, we’re signalled that something else is going on in the opening credits. These feature lab guys Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford, and subsequently a guy on the protagonists’ roof as the quintet set off on their weekend retreat. By the hour mark, we’re past the “Zombie Redneck Torture Family” and into the DUMB. And it’s all over by just past an hour and a half. I’m sure they could have extended The Cabin in the Woods, but that tight, punchy quality is to the movie’s credit.

Marty: Yeah. I had to dismember that guy with a trowel.

Where the picture distinguishes itself structurally and tonally is with Gary (Jenkins) and Steve (Whitford), overseeing proceedings in disarmingly (or alarmingly) casual manner. They’re aided by an entire team including Wendy (Amy Acker, a Whedon regular) and Daniel (Brian J White, whose character rather loses purpose after being set up for one; maybe that was supposed to be clever too). One might argue this “unseen mastermind” approach is no more than an oh-so-clever riff on Saw. On the one hand, much of this represents standard-issue Whedon irreverence, with Steve complaining about the chosen monster (“I am never going to see a merman”) and an office party starting up when it looks like their weekend work is over (this is possibly the best-delivered scene, staged with monitors showing Dana’s apparent final minutes, disregarded amid the celebrations). There’s even more comedy yucking later, as Dana and Marty unleash the facility’s entire complement of monsters, who proceed to wreak gruesome havoc (these including riffs on Hellraiser and It).

The Director: It’s our task to placate the ancient ones. And it’s yours to be offered up to them.

On the commentary track, Whedon and Goddard trip over themselves somewhat in explaining their sympathies for Gary and Steve: “It’s all about belief systems and they’re both correct in their belief systems” suggests Goddard, while Whedon equivocates slightly with the “If at some point to maintain order, we have to become so cruel…” Goddard then suggests the controllers and the students represent “the difference between youth and adulthood” whereby “You start to understand why we do these things, but that doesn’t make it right”. 

Which is a curious position, since in this context Gary and Steve are closer to Auschwitz guards than a Wall Street broker (I know some might say there’s little difference, and I know – since Gina Carano has just been cancelled for it by double-standards Disney – you’re not allowed to make any glib references to Nazis for fear of being treated in a woke-Nazi manner yourself. Oops, I just did it again). Whedon and Goddard have, with their “deciding that people are more important than humanity” choice on Marty’s part – in the kind of betrayal that can only come from a loosely defined character, Dana decides to kill him, but fails – opted not to cop out on your classic utilitarian dilemma (as in, movies tend to present the hero with such a choice, but then allow him or her to have their cake and eat it).

Sitterson: For the blessed peace of your eternal slumber.

Which is refreshing on the one hand, but one does wonder about their “sympathy for the devil” approach to Gary and Steve having “reasons”. Particularly if we separate out the elements of their plot. After all, as they also note, there’s an extent to which people – as in, one’s immediate circle – are humanity, and so one choice is any choice. And in terms of movie metaphors, it’s easy to regard the students’ atypical presence in this scenario, as apparent freely motivated individuals under sinister control, as a metaphor for humanity’s lot generally, operating under a delusion of choice beneath the strictures of an enclosed grid. One in which all major problems martialled to afflict us are at the express intent of overlords in deep underground bases, or similar, who regard us as a subspecies and therefore fit only for their sick relish and contempt when we ultimately meet our doom. And crucially, we have to consent to it (make a choice of our own freewill, but on their terms). Whedon and Goddard offer the olive branch of Gary and Steve having a “higher” motive for their cruelty, but those expressly intent on picking off humanity (as a whole), until only the virgin survives (those easily manipulated and affected, most likely the young) for a brave new world, would likely claim that they too are nobly motivated, in their own twisted, perverse fashion.

Marty: I’m sorry I let you be attacked by a werewolf and then ended the world.

At one point on the commentary track, Goddard reports that Whedon decided he would direct The Cabin in the Woods (Whedon, conveniently, has no recollection of this. He probably also has no recollection of the behaviour alleged by getting on for the entire female cast of Buffy). Of course, Whedonverse associates with a cloud of accusations hanging over them are nothing new – see also Seth Green). There are times where Goddard’s inexperience shows – Bad Times at the El Royale is much more polished – but his is solid work on a well-shot production (the cinematographer is Evil Dead II’s Peter Deming). Indeed, my criticism of The Cabin in the Woods extends more towards being able to hear too much of Whedon’s voice in it – hearing Whedon’s voice has become an ever-less enticing thing as the decades roll on – meaning the movie as a whole feels more definably the offspring of Buffy and Angel than the guy also known for working for JJ Abrams.



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.

The Krishna died of a broken finger? I mean, is that a homicide?

Miami Blues (1990) (SPOILERS) If the ‘90s crime movie formally set out its stall in 1992 with Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs , another movie very quietly got in there first at the beginning of the decade. Miami Blues picked up admiring reviews but went otherwise unnoticed on release, and even now remains under-recognised. The tale of “blithe psychopath” Federick J. Frenger, Jr., the girl whose heart he breaks and the detetive sergeant on his trail, director George Armitage’s adaptation of Charles Willeford’s novel wears a pitch black sense of humour and manages the difficult juggling act of being genuinely touching with it. It’s a little gem of a movie, perfectly formed and concisely told, one that more than deserves to rub shoulders with the better-known entries in its genre. One of the defining characteristics of Willeford’s work, it has been suggested , is that it doesn’t really fit into the crime genre; he comes from an angle of character rather than plot or h

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?

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

People still talk about Pandapocalypse 2002.

Turning Red (2022) (SPOILERS) Those wags at Pixar, eh? Yes, the most – actually, the only – impressive thing about Turning Red is the four-tiered wordplay of its title. Thirteen-year-old Mei (Rosalie Chiang) finds herself turning into a large red panda at emotive moments. She is also, simultaneously, riding the crimson wave for the first time. Further, as a teenager, she characteristically suffers from acute embarrassment (mostly due to the actions of her domineering mother Ming Lee, voiced by Sandra Oh). And finally, of course, Turning Red can be seen diligently spreading communist doctrine left, right and centre. To any political sensibility tuning in to Disney+, basically (so ones with either considerable or zero resistance to woke). Take a guess which of these isn’t getting press in reference to the movie? And by a process of elimination is probably what it it’s really about (you know in the same way most Pixars, as far back as Toy Story and Monsters, Inc . can be given an insi

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.

You tampered with the universe, my friend.

The Music of Chance (1993) (SPOILERS) You won’t find many adaptations of Paul Auster’s novels. Original screenplays, yes, a couple of which he has directed himself. Terry Gilliam has occasionally mentioned Mr. Vertigo as in development. It was in development in 1995 too, when Philip Haas and Auster intended to bring it to the screen. Which means Auster presumably approved of Haas’ work on The Music of Chance (he also cameos). That would be understandable, as it makes for a fine, ambiguous movie, pregnant with meaning yet offering no unequivocal answers, and one that makes several key departures from the book yet crucially maintains a mesmerising, slow-burn lure.

I only know what I’ve been programmed to believe. But, of course, the same goes for you.

Raised by Wolves Season One (SPOILERS) Ridley Scott’s latest transhumanist tract is so stuffed with required lore, markers and programming, it’s a miracle it manages to tell a half-engaging story along the way. Aaron Guzikowski ( Prisoners ) is the credited creator, but it has the Ridders stamp of dour dystopia all over it, complete with Darius Wolski ( Prometheus ) cinematography setting the tone. Which means bleak grey skies, augmented by South Africa this time, rather than Iceland. Raised by Wolves is a reliable mix of wacko twist plotting and clumsy, slack-jawed messaging; like the Alien prequels, it will surely never be seen through to a conclusion, but as an agenda platform it’s never less than engaging (and also frequently, for the same reasons, exasperating).

You’re like a human mummy!

The Lost City (2022) (SPOILERS) Perhaps the most distressing part of The Lost City , a Romancing the Stone riff that appears to have been packaged by the Hollywood equivalent of a processed cheese plant lacking its primary ingredient (that would be additives), is the possibility that Daniel Radcliffe is the only viable actor left standing in Tinseltown. That’s if the suggestions at least two of the performers here – Sandra Bullock and Brad Pitt – are deep faked in some way, shape or form, and the other name – Channing Tatum – is serving hard atonement time. If the latter’s choices generally weren’t so abysmal and his talent in arears, I’d assume that was the only explanation for him showing up in this dreck.

Okay, just jump right into my nightmare, the water is warm.

Jerry Maguire  (1996) (SPOILERS) I didn’t much like Jerry Maguire at the time, which I suspect is intrinsically linked to the fact that I didn’t much like Tom Cruise at the time. I’m still not really a massive fan of either, but the latter at least made an effort to rein in his most irksome traits subsequently. Jerry Maguire , however, finds him drawing on the same “bag of tricks” that mystifyingly transfixed his fan base a decade before in Top Gun . Bonnie Hunt suggested the toughest part of the role was “ playing a character that doesn’t like Tom Cruise ”. I wouldn’t have had that problem. I do not like Tom and Jerry.