Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The Woman in Black

This is topic The Woman in Black in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001864

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 05-19-2012, 08:13 AM:

Administering the sale of a deceased estate for a law firm, widower Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) discovers a town where the children are dropping like flies seemingly at the ghostly hands of a local vengeful spirit - the woman of the title. Fearing his four year old son may be next for the chop, Kipps races the clock to appease the hostile wraith by helping her find peace in death.

It's appropriate that The Woman in Black bears the Hammer Film brand. With the exception of Let Me In (the remake of the Swedish vampire hit, Let the Right One In), the Hammer House of Horror has had little output since the 70s and The Woman in Black reminisces a classic Hammer era when scares were elicited from creaks, groans, strange whispers, disembodied rocking chairs, sudden shrieking screams and, above all, silence. Despite recalling every known classic horror cliché from the cinematic necronomicon, the scares are well presented and it sure makes for a refreshing experience in these days of torture porn, shock-a-minute blood'n'guts, "found footage" fakers and Twi-lite.

Radcliffe delivers a convincing performance as the greiving widower, doing well to shake off that lightning bolt which has adorned his forehead for so much of his public life; although like Michael J. Fox and Leonardo Dicaprio before him, he'll probably have to hit the other side of 40 before he looks like an adult. In any case, his future career looks promising. Irishman Ciaran Hinds scores a likeable role as the town magnate, making a pleasant change to the hard-ass grumpy guy he usually gets lumbered with, and he's good in it.

Horror movies based on supernatural themes are ultimately judged on the credibility of their ending. All the goodness of the proceedings can be undone by a conclusion which doesn't stack up and The Woman in Black, like most other movies in this genre, sadly stumbles at this last hurdle. While the ending presented is an interesting and brave one, it is not communicated very effectively. What could have been an unusual and elegant conclusion of some rare beauty is fudged and instead comes across as, at best, unsatisfying and, at worst, borderline immoral. Considering the film is based on a novel (which I haven't read) it can only be assumed that the literary ending was handled more elegantly than this.

7 out of 10.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 05-19-2012, 09:59 AM:

Why is the movie obliged to have an "elegant conclusion of rare beauty"? I understand it didn't work for you, but the conclusion is subject to interpretation. I thought it worked very well. Without going into spoilers, my take is this: the favor the Daniel Radcliffe character did for her (the 'reuniting'), she returned to him, albeit in a way that could be seen as mean-spirited and immoral, but really isn't, because he was a terribly unhappy person in the first place, right?

Think about how terribly boring the movies would be if everything was perfectly cut and dried at the end.

Posted by Melanie Loggins (Member # 6454) on 05-19-2012, 12:10 PM:

I appreciate both of these perspectives! It was far from a perfect film, but it was a lovely change of pace for horror movies and almost escaped the "where's Waldo" effect I hate in movies like Paranormal Activity, where you spend most of the movie looking at the background to find the thing moving/door opening/shadow lurking.

What I liked about it was - SPOILERS - how there were two women whose presence seemed to predict calamity. Just because one was in white didn't mean she wasn't a bad sign for our hero.

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 05-20-2012, 02:23 AM:

quote: Mark
Without going into spoilers, my take is this: the favor the Daniel Radcliffe character did for her (the 'reuniting'), she returned to him, albeit in a way that could be seen as mean-spirited and immoral, but really isn't, because he was a terribly unhappy person in the first place, right?

And that was my take on it too and it's a brave conclusion for the story to arrive at. But it's a tricky one to put a positive spin on and I don't think the film did this very successfully. I think it's too ambiguous to overcome the moral conundrum that it invites. It needs to state its case a little more strongly, I think.

But to answer your question: "why is the movie obliged to have an elegant conclusion of rare beauty?" Well, why wouldn't you want want that?

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 05-20-2012, 12:24 PM:

Stu. We are talking about a horror film from Hammer Studios, no less. You admit in your review that the film retains the same stylistic tropes as films made in the "classic era". Now, I don't know about you, but I didn't expect an elegant conclusion of rare beauty from Taste The Blood of Dracula when I saw it, and I think it's grotesquely optimistic to expect one from this film.

Thing is, I have no problem with elegant, beautiful endings in movies when it is in keeping with the story and characters. I saw Never Let Me Go again the other night. This is a lovely, well written film that ends with the pretty heroine on her way to have the organs stripped out of her body and donated to others while she is still alive. Pretty horrible, but no way to clean it up with a happyjoy ending and stay true to the story. How about the original Night of The Living Dead. Probably one of the most seriously fucked up endings of any film ever made, but it is rightfully considered a modern classic, and no one would dare suggest that it should have ended on a more positive note.

*****

OBTW, you mentioned that you were not familiar with the ending of the novel that the film is based on. Here it is:

Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
In the novel by Susan Hill, Arthur is not a widower, Stella is his fiancé. He goes to Marsh House to try to clean up affairs, and thereby runs afoul of the Woman in Black, who really really enjoys being vindictive. Since he does not have any children to kill, she tries instead to drown his dog in quicksand. Arthur is able to rescue it, however, and as they lie gasping for breath, he sees the ghost glaring at him for spoiling her fun.
Years later, Arthur and Stella are married with a young son. They visit a fair where horse and buggy rides are offered. Stella takes the boy for a ride while Arthur strolls. Suddenly, he sees the Woman in Black staring at him from a under a tree. Horrified, he tries to stop the horse, but the ghost runs out in front of it and spooks it, causing it to rear up and dash the buggy against a tree, killing the boy instantly. Stella is mortally wounded and dies later. The end.

Real downer, huh? I think the ending of the film is actually better AND more positive, even though there is a certain ambiguity to it.

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 05-20-2012, 06:38 PM:

quote: Mark
We are talking about a horror film from Hammer Studios, no less. You admit in your review that the film retains the same stylistic tropes as films made in the "classic era". Now, I don't know about you, but I didn't expect an elegant conclusion of rare beauty from Taste The Blood of Dracula when I saw it, and I think it's grotesquely optimistic to expect one from this film.

Haha, fair point! I guess 30+ years down the track I expect a little more from my movies. [Wink]

I have no problem with nihilistic endings for movies if it is appropriate for the material and is making an interesting point. Martyrs is one of the more interesting horror movies I've seen in recent times and its ending is far from happy but it's making an interesting philosophical point. The same with Haneke's Funny Games, an extremely gruelling movie but again has some very interesting things to say.

I concede that the ending for The Woman in Black is admirable enough and, as I said, quite brave but I feel it lacks the courage of conviction to really get behind what it is trying to say and that is that....

Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
....killing a child and his father could actually be the path to everlasting happiness. It's contrary to the accepted moral viewpoint that we should grieve, come to terms with our loss, live full lives and then join our loved ones in the hereafter thereafter. It's a very interesting viewpoint but the film is so ambiguous in presenting this statement that it struggles to make the point at all. I feel that it needs to harden up and just say what it wants to say and stop being so wishy washy.

And I don't think ambiguity is inherently bad. Again, it's all about what's appropriate and if a story has an ambiguous ending it should raise an interesting question. "What was that all about?" is not an interesting question.

It's hard for me to make a judgement on the book without reading it; of course, it's all about context. But it sounds interesting enough and seems to pull less punches than the film. [Smile]