criterionforum.org

If West's the House of the Devil announced a director to keep an eye on, West's followup announces an actress. I'm not familiar with Sara Paxton's work before this film (and a cursory look at her IMDB profile shows me I wouldn't be), but she certainly gives a star performance here. Paxton's surprisingly comic turn as the slim flibbertigibbet left manning the counter at a soon to be closed inn is the sole reason to recommend the film, but there are more than enough moments of physical comedy and general amusement to be had thanks to Paxton's presence that it's more of an endorsement than it sounds. I particularly loved the unbroken take of her trying to throw out the garbage (which was worth the ten bucks it cost to see this alone).

As for the film proper, eh, it does the slow burn thing again, but to diminished effect, and I think West loses the game when he tries to have it both ways in the film's epilogue. (West may be talented, but he is in desperate need of consultation on his endings).

Spoiler

The film seems afraid to admit what it is, which is to say not a horror film at all but a film about what effect paranoia and fear of these things can do. It's like that folk tale about the young girl who is dared to walk through the graveyard and, upon getting her dress snagged in a vine, is convinced the hands of the dead have grasped her and dies of fright. A concordance of enablers of the young innkeeper's fears result in her death, and there seems to be no evidence of the supernatural other than what the loneliness and doubts cause her to see. Which makes the lame final shot all the weaker. If West had properly taken a side and let the film finish with an admission of the lack of actual horrors, it would be far more tragic and effective.

But instead, here we are, left with an interesting but flawed film blessed by a performance better than it deserves.

As a sidenote, detractors of forum cause célèbre Lena Dunham will surely appreciate the smash cut that ends her inexplicable cameo in the film.

Dunham had a voice role in House of the Devil too (911 operator). Her parents probably know West's parents or something.

So, Lena Durham makes an appearance, playing an annoying 20-something barista. Alas, typecast at such a tender young age!

Film: not as strong as House of the Devil. And I generally don't have a thing for schlubby aging guys, but something about Pat Healy was strangely appealing. Sara Paxton: so chirpy that you almost want her to bite it. And Kelly McGillis works her on-screen time for what it's worth. Her crabby New Age healer/old sitcom actress was the best thing about the film, I'd say.

Ah, I see we're of the same mind about the film, if not, apparently, about the location of the search box.

Wait, so once someone deems a film only worthy of the Films of 2012 thread, we're no longer allowed to make a thread for said film if moved to do so? It strikes me that something like this or The Grey will be talked about longer than the sorts of films that thread was intended for. I don't really understand the use of that thread if it's just there for the first person to post about Film X to decree that it shouldn't have a dedicated thread from that point forward. What's the harm in creating a new thread for a new film in the New Films subforum, anyway?

mfunk9786 wrote:Wait, so once someone deems a film only worthy of the Films of 2012 thread, we're no longer allowed to make a thread for said film if moved to do so? It strikes me that something like this or The Grey will be talked about longer than the sorts of films that thread was intended for. I don't really understand the use of that thread if it's just there for the first person to post about Film X to decree that it shouldn't have a dedicated thread from that point forward. What's the harm in creating a new thread for a new film in the New Films subforum, anyway?

Don't worry, if there's significant discussion, it'll be spun off into its own thread. I'm in the process of moving those other posts here.

It's just odd, is all. It feels like the Films of 2012 thread is either the very early phase of a better way of organizing things, or completely superfluous.

I figure why not just post in that thread, once ten or so posts get made on a title boom it earns it's own thread.

mfunk9786 wrote:It's just odd, is all. It feels like the Films of 2012 thread is either the very early phase of a better way of organizing things, or completely superfluous.

It's a place for people to post one off comments for a film that they otherwise wouldn't bother posting about if it entailed making a whole thread. It's much easier to justify offhand comments on a film you thought was decent (or bad) when there's already an available thread. Most people save creating threads for those films that really move them to do so.

These Ti West films are like Goosebumps books for adults, and I love it. What a sense for pace this fellow has! I liked this less than the stellar House of the Devil, but someone needs to give him Louie-esque full control over a weekly horror show a la Tales from the Crypt, stat

While it has his usual problems I figure I should recommend The Roost which if nothing else is delightfully ambitious.

I recently went to see You’re Next, in which Ti West has a brief role. He seems to be pals with some members of the cast and crew (Adam Wingard, Simon Barrett and Joe Swanberg), as they've worked together on several other projects. You're Next I didn't care for too much, since I felt that it was too much of a straightforward slasher devoid of any real horror. The more I think about it, though, the more I can't help but compare it to Ti West's excellent recent work, The Innkeepers and House of the Devil, and feel frustrated. The premise of You're Next is a simple one -- domestic home invasion in the country -- that can be fertile ground for many scares, but nearly all of these opportunities are squandered by the filmmakers. I wish they had consulted with Mr. West more on set.

The reason I keep comparing these three films in my head is because one of the most prominent failures in You're Next is something that Ti West did so beautifully in The Innkeepers and House of the Devil, which is to map out the single-setting interiors in which the bulk of the films take place. Look no further than the titles of West's last two features as evidence of their focus on interior spaces (and the people who occupy those spaces - more on that in a bit.) West edits the films in such a way that the viewer is left with a definite sense of a place.

Spoiler

To name a random example from The Innkeepers, when, towards the end of the film, Claire runs from the second floor of the inn to the third floor to check on the old man, enough shots are included so that the action feels continuous between the floors and so that the viewer can create a mental portrait of the surroundings.

In You're Next, there is never this sort of continuity. There are no shots of hallways that serve to establish the relationship between rooms. The physical space surrounding the characters is treated merely as a background - all the viewer sees of the mansion is disjointed shots that do not add up to a logical environment. This was also the problem with West's first feature The Roost, which takes place in a nonsensical barn maze.

With The Innkeepers, this emphasis on place is especially important, because the central goal of the characters is to record audio and visual imprints of the inn and it's most famous resident before the building is torn down. "We gotta find some proof that Madeline O'Malley really exists before this place closes down, we have to. Imagine how she feels, being stuck here forever. We gotta get something on tape...it's like a moral imperative," Claire says excitedly near the start of the film. It's a line that one can imagine Alfred Hitchcock or Chris Marker relishing. Is it a coincidence that the ghost in the story is named Madeline, that name over which Marker has obsessed? "Thus one comes to call Madeleines all those objects, all those instants that can serve as triggers for the strange mechanism of Memory," writes Marker in his CD-ROM Immemory.

West seems to have found a Madeleine in the Yankee Pedlar Inn (a real inn, by the way). He is not simply trying to tell a ghost story, but he is instead intent on capturing the atmosphere of this location at a particular point in time. The result is that the film is definitely a slow burner with an odd sense of humor. I could probably count on one hand the number of scares West attempts in the film, but each one is so much more effective as a result of the buildup.

Spoiler

The final scene in the basement still makes me panic after several viewings. It's no coincidence that this is the one area of the inn that West never fully reveals. Viewers are given just a few ultra-dark shots of the basement that leave it a space shrouded in mystery and fear. The result is that the terror is amplified in Claire's final scene, as she moves from a known, safe place (upstairs) to an unknown, dangerous place (the basement). I agree with domino that the final shot of the epilogue is unnecessary (it's the only cheap scare in the film), but it's not enough to destroy the genuinely haunting mood West creates with the rest of the film.