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.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Who’s got the Figgy Port?

Loki (2021) (SPOILERS) Can something be of redeemable value and shot through with woke (the answer is: Mad Max: Fury Road )? The two attributes certainly sound essentially irreconcilable, and Loki ’s tendencies – obviously, with new improved super-progressive Kevin Feige touting Disney’s uber-agenda – undeniably get in the way of what might have been a top-tier MCU entry from realising its full potential. But there are nevertheless solid bursts of highly engaging storytelling in the mix here, for all its less cherishable motivations. It also boasts an effortlessly commanding lead performance from Tom Hiddleston; that alone puts Loki head and shoulders above the other limited series thus far.

As in the hokey kids’ show guy?

A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t think Mr Rogers could have been any creepier had Kevin Spacey played him. It isn’t just the baggage Tom Hanks brings, and whether or not he’s the adrenochrome lord to the stars and/or in Guantanamo and/or dead and/or going to make a perfectly dreadful Colonel Tom Parker and an equally awful Geppetto; it’s that his performance is so constipated and mannered an imitation of Mr Rogers’ genuineness that this “biopic” takes on a fundamentally sinister turn. His every scene with a youngster isn’t so much exuding benevolent empathy as suggestive of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang ’s Child Catcher let loose in a TV studio (and again, this bodes well for Geppetto). Extend that to A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood ’s conceit, that Mr Rogers’ life is one of a sociopathic shrink milking angst from his victims/patients in order to get some kind of satiating high – a bit like a rejuvenating drug, on that score – and you have a deeply unsettli

It’ll be like living in the top drawer of a glass box.

Someone’s Watching Me! (1978) (SPOILERS) The first of a pair of TV movies John Carpenter directed in the 1970s, but Someone’s Watching Me! is more affiliated, in genre terms, to his breakout hit ( Halloween ) and reasonably successful writing job ( The Eyes of Laura Mars ) of the same year than the also-small-screen Elvis . Carpenter wrote a slew of gun-for-hire scripts during this period – some of which went on to see the twilight of day during the 1990s – so directing Someone’s Watching Me! was not a given. It’s well-enough made and has its moments of suspense, but you sorely miss a signature Carpenter theme – it was by Harry Sukman, his penultimate work, the final being Salem’s Lot – and it really does feel very TV movie-ish.

I'm offering you a half-share in the universe.

Doctor Who Season 8 – Worst to Best I’m not sure I’d watched Season Eight chronologically before. While I have no hesitation in placing it as the second-best Pertwee season, based on its stories, I’m not sure it pays the same dividends watched as a unit. Simply, there’s too much Master, even as Roger Delgado never gets boring to watch and the stories themselves offer sufficient variety. His presence, turning up like clockwork, is inevitably repetitive. There were no particular revelatory reassessments resulting from this visit, then, except that, taken together – and as The Directing Route extra on the Blu-ray set highlights – it’s often much more visually inventive than what would follow. And that Michael Ferguson should probably have been on permanent attachment throughout this era.

What's a movie star need a rocket for anyway?

The Rocketeer (1991) (SPOILERS) The Rocketeer has a fantastic poster. One of the best of the last thirty years (and while that may seem like faint praise, what with poster design being a dying art – I’m looking at you Marvel, or Amazon and the recent The Tomorrow War – it isn’t meant to be). The movie itself, however, tends towards stodge. Unremarkable pictures with a wide/cult fanbase, conditioned by childhood nostalgia, are ten-a-penny – Willow for example – and in this case, there was also a reasonably warm critical reception. But such an embrace can’t alter that Joe Johnston makes an inveterately bland, tepid movie director. His “feel” for period here got him The First Avenger: Captain America gig, a bland, tepid movie tending towards stodge. So at least he’s consistent.

By whom will this be rectified? Your ridiculously ineffectual assassins?

The X-Files 3.2: Paperclip Paperclip recovers ground after The Blessing Way stumbled slightly in its detour, and does so with some of the series’ most compelling dramatics so far. As well as more of Albert performing prayer rituals for the sick (perhaps we could spend some time with the poor guy over breakfast, or going to the movies? No, all he’s allowed is stock Native American mysticism).

Here’s Bloody Justice for you.

Laughter in Paradise (1951) (SPOILERS) The beginning of a comedic run for director-producer Mario Zampa that spanned much of the 1950s, invariably aided by writers Michael Pertwee and Jack Davies (the latter went on to pen a spate of Norman Wisdom pictures including The Early Bird , and also comedy rally classic Monte Carlo or Bust! ) As usual with these Pertwee jaunts, Laughter in Paradise boasts a sparky premise – renowned practical joker bequeaths a fortune to four relatives, on condition they complete selected tasks that tickle him – and more than enough resultant situational humour.

That’s what it’s all about. Interrupting someone’s life.

Following (1998) (SPOILERS) The Nolanverse begins here. And for someone now delivering the highest-powered movie juggernauts globally – that are not superhero or James Cameron movies – and ones intrinsically linked with the “art” of predictive programming, it’s interesting to note familiar themes of identity and limited perception of reality in this low-key, low-budget and low-running time (we won’t see much of the latter again) debut. And, naturally, non-linear storytelling. Oh, and that cool, impersonal – some might say clinical – approach to character, subject and story is also present and correct.

Damn prairie dog burrow!

Tremors (1990) (SPOILERS) I suspect the reason the horror comedy – or the sci-fi comedy, come to that – doesn’t tend to be the slam-dunk goldmine many assume it must be, is because it takes a certain sensibility to do it right. Everyone isn’t a Joe Dante or Sam Raimi, or a John Landis, John Carpenter, Edgar Wright, Christopher Landon or even a Peter Jackson or Tim Burton, and the genre is littered with financial failures, some of them very good failures (and a good number of them from the names mentioned). Tremors was one, only proving a hit on video (hence six sequels at last count). It also failed to make Ron Underwood a directing legend.

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008) (SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanley was well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley , our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“ too syrupy ”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog.  Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has c