Wednesday, July 24, 2013

The Conjuring

We all have our ghost stories. Tales of encounters with the other side. Moving drapes in our bedroom, light bulbs that mysteriously flicker on, picture frames that are somehow moved. If we don’t have stories of our own, then we know someone who knows someone who has a great one. I have one myself; an irrefutable event that I (an admitted skeptic to all things paranormal) have never been able to find a logical explanation for. But I’m not going to share it here because, quite frankly, it’s too personal.

The point is, everyone has a ghost story to tell, including the Perron family, who claimed that their Harrisville, Rhode Island farmhouse was haunted by ghosts of century’s past. One of the Perron daughters, Andrea, wrote three novels that documented her family’s horrific experience. In Perron’s text, she mentions how supernatural investigators, Ed and Lorraine Warren, helped rid her house of paranormal activity. And it is the accounts of both of these families that act as the basis for James Wan’s The Conjuring.


The first act of the film cross cuts Ed (Patrick Wilson) and his wife Lorraine Warren (Vera Farmiga) as they investigate new paranormal claims and lecture at colleges, while Roger (Ron Livingston) and Carolyn Perron (Lili Taylor) move into a large farmhouse with their five daughters. After a few nights of unexplainable terror, Carolyn attends a lecture hosted by the Warrens, and the couple agrees to investigate the Perron home.

We’ve all seen this type of movie before: new family moves into a haunted house, thereby angering ghosts of said home. And therein lies Wan’s challenge. When I first heard about The Conjuring, I wondered why in the hell James Wan (who helped make horror cool and profitable again with his second film, Saw) would want to tackle such a tired sub genre of horror. Hell, his haunted house flick from two years ago, the box office hit, Insidious (also starring Wilson), has a sequel dropping in less than two months, so why risk oversaturating his filmography with more of the same? Audaciousness, it appears. And damn spooky source material to boot.
Now, here’s the thing. I’m not really a fan of Insidious. It is well acted, well shot, well scored, sure. And if it was the only haunted house film I’d ever seen, then I’m sure I’d appreciate it more. But to be honest, I have trouble differentiating it among the dozens of other new-family-moving-into-a-haunted-home films I’ve seen. I forgot about Insidious the moment after I saw it, and I mention all this because I know I’m not going to forget The Conjuring anytime soon.

Let me be clear about something: movies like Insidious or The Conjuring or last year’s Sinister do not scare me. I think the frights in those films are based on an effective blend of choreography and stringed music and nothing more. So I knew that in order for me to enjoy The Conjuring, it would have to go for something more than those scares (which it does have plenty of). The story would have to intrigue me, its look would have to impress me, and so on. And, to put it mildly, I was intrigued, I was impressed – point in fact, I was stunned by how well made The Conjuring was.
The cinematography by John R. Leonetti is some of the best camera work I have seen from a modern horror film. Wan and Leonetti use long takes and a floating camera to summon fear. The film is set in the early ‘70s, and Leonetti has very wisely gone to great lengths to shoot his film in a way that evokes other films of that time. Kirk M. Morri’s editing is patient, which is not a word I use for most horror films made today. Morri knows how long to hold a shot, and precisely which coverage is best for relaying information. In short, The Conjuring is made by a guy who cares about movies. I haven’t liked all of Wan’s films, but you will never hear me argue that he doesn’t know what he’s doing.

You’ll have to forgive me, I know I haven’t focused on the things reviews usually focus on – plot, acting creditability, effectiveness of climax – but those all felt secondary to me. I was first impressed by The Conjuring when I saw its massive, ‘70s era title card slowly pan into frame. That’s all it takes for me: a bold title card to get my attention, and I’m suddenly rooting for you. The challenge is to hold interest, which The Conjuring did, and then some. B+

16 comments:

  1. "I was first impressed by The Conjuring when I saw its massive, ‘70s era title card slowly pan into frame. That’s all it takes for me: a bold title card to get my attention, and I’m suddenly rooting for you."

    Yeah, this pretty well sums up my experience with the film too. Follow it up with some gorgeous single-take tracking shots through a labyrinthe house jumping from character to character, and I'm prepared to forgive any number of cliched scares or bouts of horror movie logic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. This was by no means a perfect film, but it definitely stood out for me among other films of its kind. I totally geeked out when I saw that title card. Mad impressive.

      Delete
  2. This is by far my favorite movie of the year so far. I saw it almost a week ago and I'm still freaked out - while all the jump scares and usual stuff was highly creepy and effective the doll thing in the beginning and Taylor's performance in last portion of the movie was just terrifying. I remember Insidious quite well, mostly because of the very unique, simple but scary score, but The Conjuring was just much more elegant and well made than that one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So happy to hear your enthusiasm for this one! I really hope you review it - can't wait to hear what you have to say.

      Your final sentence sums up my thoughts about both films perfectly. The Conjuring was far better made.

      Delete
  3. It's nothing new we haven't seen done already with the horror genre, but at least it keeps the blood pumping and the material quick, easy, and fun. And this is all coming from a non-fan of horror. Good review Alex

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Dan. I'm a not a particular fan of horror either, but this one worked for me. It was familiar, but contained enough fresh spins to hold my interest.

      Delete
  4. I'm of the opinion that while James Wan may be able to craft a "scary" movie, he still isn't capable of making a "good" movie. The overbearing cheeseball score during the denouement, digital filters to indicate flashbacks, and the hackneyed attempts at emotional build-up and payoff failed to convince me. Same with the tacked-on creepy-ass doll subplot.

    Sounds like I'm being overly-critical, and maybe I am, but I don't think scares alone can justify a film's existence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting comment here. I actually thought the movie wasn't that scary but was exceptionally well made. We like what we like, as I often say, but this one definitely surprised me.

      Delete
  5. Interesting, I wasn't too interested in this film because it just seemed like just another Insidious-esque kind of film (a film which I have not seen but don't think I'm missing out on much), but this has me interested now. Honestly, I've never found the Saw movies to be all that engaging, the first two were alright, but they didn't really scare/horrify/etc me enough for me to say I loved them or would care to return to them. I like both of the main(?) actors enough, but another horror movie just didn't catch my attention, but based on this response you have definitely made me want to take notice of this film. Maybe I'll have to find time for this one now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey man, before I saw this film, I was right there with you. Like I mentioned in my review, I didn't find the film scary (I rarely find these movies scary), but you can't deny that it's well made. It was smart and engaging, which isn't something I can say often about films of its kind.

      I dig the first Saw. I appreciate that it was a refreshing idea and they made it for so cheap. Not great, but pretty cool. I don't care for any of the sequels though. Two was decent I guess.

      Delete
    2. Well I haven't had any interest in seeing anything past Saw 2, and while the original is decent enough, I only dig the second because of the pit of needles which just gives me the creeps thinking about it. Beyond that it isn't anything all that special - so I am certainly with you there.

      Delete
    3. Duuuude that pit is Fucked. Up. That asshole just tosses her right in. Oops.

      Delete
  6. I don't know if I'll catch this in theaters, but your review has piqued my interest. I'll check it out at some point, though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not really a must-see-in-theaters kind of flick, in my opinion. Perfectly fine at home. At night. With the lights turned off. Dun dun duuuunnnn.

      Delete
  7. Great review Alex. I agree that it's perfectly crafted film.

    I loved The Conjuring, it was properly scary, really well-made movie. There is a thing, it has impressive sounds effects to frighten anyone, but the tension which is lying through the whole film, freaked my out. It's one of the best horrors seen lately.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! Yep, I thought this was a solid horror flick from start to finish. Really surprised me.

      Delete