James
Wan, 2016, Canada-USA
Oh, surely full of the kind of stuff that a horror
audience usually both laughs at and with: although not really marred by bad
acting, it has bad dialogue and an over-earnestness that only amplifies the
condescension of the conceit that this is a “true story”. Oh, it’s bad with a lack of focus because it’s so
busy squeezing out a franchise. The popularity of the extending empires of
James Wan’s ‘Insidious’ and ‘The Conjuring’ is probably down to the
most obvious mainstreaming of horror slickly reduced to the noise/jump scares:
not that horror fans don’t like them too, but they also act like your unhip
uncle’s idea of “scareee” and “spookeeee”. They don’t care for depth, just
noise/jump-scares that are supposed to sate that most superficial and perpetual
horror qualification of “Was it scary?” Now, there is nothing wrong with just
being a vehicle of dispensing horror vignettes – the recent ‘Terrified’ and ‘The Grudge’ series does that nicely – but for any artistry Wan has,
there is something phoney at work here.
‘The
Conjuring 2’
feels like his laziest yet, not really providing a truly distinctive scare or
surprising set-up and frequently veering into unintentional comedy. The use of
“I Started a Joke” to accompany the
emotional moment when the girl is found falsifying the possession is hilarious –
and then it rains for some pathetic fallacy; but I laughed out loud from the
first chunk of dialogue when Lorraine Warren (Vera Farmiga) is conducting a
séance in Amityville (!) and tells those around the table, “Envision yourself
in a halo of glowing white light. It will protect you.” It’s too professional
to be in ‘Troll 2’ territory but it’s
wading in the same shallow waters. But then again ‘Troll 2’ was sincerely intended, not realising how deliriously
stupid and delightfully inept it was being*; ‘The Conjuring’ franchise by contrast is deeply cynical, peddling
noise scares as fear and the “True Story” as some badge of validation,
ransacking the grift of a couple of con artists for material.
It cares not for the truth: if it did, “Annabelle”
would be a seemingly innocuous rag doll and the original “demon” Valek plaguing
the Hodgsons wouldn’t have been swapped for the more franchise-friendly Nun; not that Valek was “the truth”, but just that his replacement by the Nun shows how fast and loose this will play with the source. And it also shoe-horns in The
Crooked Man. The thing with ‘The Exorcist’
however silly it may be (and silliness is a general genre ingredient), there is
no doubt that it absolutely and vividly believes in itself and so the silliness
doesn’t matter; it doesn’t register because it’s too busy being unnerving. But yes, streaming trivia pop-up does say this is "loosely based" on the Warren's Enfield investigation and it's probably redundant to expect credibility. ‘The Conjuring 2’ is so starkly a shrug
at the lowest common demands of horror tricks it has the conviction of
someone jumping from a closet shouting “Boo!” and then getting all
unconvincingly serious and earnest about the motivation.
With ‘The
Conjuring’, there was at least no doubt that James Wan could stage and
frame a scare, but aside from a prolonged Nun sequence in this sequel, this
just feels indifferent and baggy. It’s unnecessarily over two hours long, which
I guess allows for the inclusion of Patrick Wilson’s Elvis impersonation and
gives him time to knock up a painting of The Nun (!) (“Hey, I know I’m no
Picasso but I didn’t think it was that bad.”). It also allows a brief trip to
Amityville at the start, but despite a pleasing reveal of the iconic Amityville
windows (which can be seen as a nice nod to horror aficionados) it appears that
that “true story” was just another
set-up for The Nun.
In Enfield, Wan seems to have no idea that the
cramped interiors of an English house would allow for all kinds of memorable claustrophobia
and cramped cold corners: instead, we get a house with the most unconvincing
interior; it’s too big and no poor family on their last pennies would not have
such a place (and the “Trivia” pop up when streaming points out that the spooky
chair’s corner changes size repeatedly). What’s amusing is that the film closes
with a series of pictures of the real Enfield haunting and Hodgsons which imply
the actual cramped conditions. And what about that seemingly permanently
flooded basement? …and why don’t they just get rid of the apparently possessed
chair? I’m sure the Warrens could have found space for it in their lounge.
And it’s a shame because Wan has proven he can
set-up trashy scares (even if he then hammers the point home) and the cast of kids
all seem to be acting with a great conviction even as the dialogue lets them
down. It’s bright and glossy enough, but it’s unconvincing and has that unintentional
comedy in that special way that horror can provide.
·
See
Michael Stephenson’s ‘Best Worst Movie’
on the making of ‘Troll 2’.
No comments:
Post a Comment