Summary:
A young lawyer travels to an isolated village to settle the estate of a client, only to find a vengeful spirit is haunting the occupants of the village.
My Thoughts:
It’s October again, so that means two things: 1) I review a ton of horror films, and 2) I get to play a game of “What horror movies do I own but have not yet reviewed for TMM?” Whilst scouring my extensive collection of movies for a film I hadn’t seen in a while, I found this, and as I had just the night previously watched the admittedly middling 2010 version of “The Wolfman”, I thought I would keep the gothic horror train rolling with another equally middling gothic horror film: “The Woman in Black”.
I saw “The Woman in Black” in theaters, and remembered enjoying it, but I think that was the last time I watched it. So, having been seven years since I’d watched this film, I figured most of the plot points and scary bits would’ve faded from memory. I plopped in the disk and started it up, and then immediately exclaimed “Oh, shoot!” when I saw that this was a Hammer production!
For those who aren’t as far gone into the realm of cinephelia as I, I will explain. Hammer is a British production company that produced a slew of gothic horror films in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. If you’ve ever seen images of Christopher Lee (“The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring”) as Dracula or Peter Cushing (“Star Wars: A New Hope”) as Van Helsing, then you’ve seen images from Hammer horror films. Many of these films were cut from the same cloth as the Universal Monster movies, which is why I personally gravitate towards them. Hammer Horror movies feature plenty of the same or similar characters like Frankenstein, mummies, werewolves, vampires and Dracula, but Hammer also released a slew of original films like “The Devil Rides Out”. While the Universal Monster movies would, by today’s standards, probably be rated PG, Hammer horror films tend to be a little darker, a little more violent, and a little more graphic, and most of them would probably end up with PG-13 or R ratings. As with the Universal films, some of the Hammer movies are pretty great, but a lot of them are pretty middling. Still, for fans of gothic horror, Hammer provides a lot of fun. When I saw that this film was produced by Hammer, a company that, to my knowledge had effectively shut down production, I grew pretty ecstatic, and it recontextualized this whole film. For the average viewer, this wont change a frame of the film, but for me, it was like finding a little added bonus for the gleeful cinephile in me, one that I wanted to share with you, dear reader.
“I believe even the most rational minds can play games in the dark.”
Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe, “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”), a young lawyer from London, travels to a remote village where he must settle the estate of Mrs. Drablow, a wealthy woman who owned a mansion far removed from the town known as Eel Marsh House. On his way to the town, Arthur encounters Sam Daily (Ciaran Hinds, “Red Sparrow”), a likeminded practical man whom Arthur soon befriends. Arthur travels to Eel Marsh House, and he finds that the house is a strange place to be when alone, but he isn’t sure he is alone… there’s a strange woman in black who keeps appearing, and soon Arthur finds himself tangling with what might be a malicious spirit.
Last year, when I reviewed “It” (2017), I brought up a question that I would like to readdress: Do horror films need to be terrifying in order to be good? I would argue no. Horror is a very versatile genre, and yes, fear is an important part of that genre, but it isn’t the only thing that makes the horror genre unique. Horror films are some of the only films that can deal with themes of supernatural or ethereal implications without the film feeling tawdry, and I’ve found that well-executed movies with horror themes films can work just as well as horror movies that are terrifying beyond belief. This film is not the scariest movie in the world, in fact, most of it is pretty tame, but the way this film ends is absolutely chilling; it’s one of the better PG-13 horror endings I’ve ever seen (that’s not saying anything spectacular, mind you, but it is an accomplishment).
Most of this film’s thrills come from the atmosphere. The world of Eel Marsh House is dilapidated and poorly lit, the home itself is only accessible during low tide, as the road is covered by water during high tide, effectively turning the Home into an island (I kept thinking of the house featured prominently in Roman Polanski’s “Cul-De-Sac”). Curtains of gossamer hang from the ceiling, and candlelight does little to banish the encroaching shadows. Elements like these are staples of gothic horror (and Hammer films!) and this film is a treasure trove for gothic horror atmosphere if it’s nothing else.
Another thing I like about the home is the way that the world seems to build itself around the story, revealing itself slowly. “Woman in Black” feels more like a mystery story with horror elements, and that certainly helps the narrative. As Arthur walks through the halls of Eel Marsh, he discovers little things that hint at darker pasts, and, eventually, finds himself lost in the halls of Eel Marsh. The way these scenes play out make it feel like Arthur has stumbled into a labyrinth; it’s disorienting and hard to follow, almost as if, if left alone, Arthur would wander hopelessly into the home until he was lost forever. That feeling of disorientation is really hard to pull off without frustrating the viewer, but the disorienting scenes in this movie worked pretty well.
Daniel Radcliffe himself is pretty good. There were a few scenes where his ‘frightened’ face looked more like an ‘I’m dealing with a slight annoyance’ face, and honestly that took me out of a few scenes that were meant to be some of the more terrifying parts. As far as me being able to watch this film and not think of him as Harry Potter, he nails it.
Here I want to throw up a big spoiler tag because I’m about to talk about the end of the film. Well, really, lets talk about one of the main themes first: violence against children. This film features a number of scenes which depict children killing themselves, and that right there is pretty dark for a PG-13 flick. What makes this film even darker is the way that it ends. After Arthur has done something that he believes will sate the woman in black’s vengeful ways, he goes to a train station and prepares to depart. If the film would’ve ended happily here, with Arthur and his son hopping on a train and going back to London, it would’ve completely ruined the film for me a) because what Arthur was doing to sate the ghost’s anger was all based on speculation, and b) because this movie was pretty mediocre throughout, it needed a way to add a final sting to make it even remotely memorable, and the way it did so was wonderfully executed. Arthur and his son are killed by a train, by way of influence from the woman in black. The film ends with Arthur and his son reuniting with Arthur’s wife, who died during childbirth. That two-minute scene wraps up the film beautifully; it makes the ghost more frightening, it prompts character development in Sam Daily’s character, and it gives us bittersweet closure on Arthur’s story- we know that the family is reunited, even if it is in death.
Verdict:
Overall, “The Woman in Black” is not a great film, but it is a competently made genre film that succeeds in holding my attention from start to finish. Since I’ve gone full cinephile-nut and joined TMM’s team, I’ve found it easier to appreciate films that aren’t quite great, but do have something to offer. I can almost guarantee in twenty years no one will really remember this movie, but it’s entertaining enough that if you stumble upon it on Netflix or any other streaming service, it would be worth your time.
Review Written By: