Monthly Archives: October 2024

Top Ten Lists

Top Ten Terrifying Performances in Horror Movies

The horror movie genre isn’t exactly known for being the place to find great acting.  Given the lower costs that most horror films are made under, it usually relates to a lower quality of performance seen on screen.  Bad performances in horror movies usually are attributed to the level of quality of the actor themselves, who perhaps are acting in front of the camera for the first time.  Or there might be a good quality actor in a role that is very much ill suited for them and they are just there to collect a paycheck.  Either way, horror movie sadly do not get the same good fortune that other genres get when it comes to showcasing the talents of the actors.  But, there are cases when great performances can coincide with some truly terrifying movies.  Even in some of the cases where a horror movie is clearly done on the cheap there can be an example of a performer giving it their all and treating schlock like it’s Shakespeare.  There are in fact some performances that have transcended the genre and have been heralded as among the greatest of all time.  In a couple cases, there are even Oscar winning performances that came from horror movies.  For a genre that is as old as cinema itself, it’s understandable that many actors have looked to the dark side to find a role that really allows them to flex their acting muscles in ways that other genres don’t allow them to.  For this list, I am going to share my choices for what I think are the top ten most terrifying performances to have ever come from horror movies.  To be on this list, the performance can’t just be a great but not scary one that happened to be in a horror movie.  The performances on this list are ones that genuinely send chills down the spine of audiences while at the same time showcasing just how good the actor is in playing the part.  And in some of the cases on this list, the roles have been so unforgettably terrifying, that they still stick with us many years later.  So, with all that laid out, let’s take a look at my picks for the Top Ten Terrifying Performances in Horror Movies.

10.

ANNIE GRAHAM from HEREDITARY (2018)

Played by Toni Collette

Not every performance in a horror movie starts out as terrifying.  Some evolve over the course of the movie and by the finale turn into the things of nightmares for audiences.  One of the most vivid portrayals of a slow burn descent into the terrifying can be found in Ari Aster’s Hereditary, where actress Toni Collette delivers one of her most stellar performances in a career that’s full of great ones.  The character of Annie Graham is on the surface a grieving mother, who not only lost her own mom with whom she had a complicated relationship, but also her daughter in a horrific accident, all in the span of a couple of days.  But, as the movie moves further into the plot, we begin to see Annie unravel in an unsettling way, lashing out at the family she has left and going to extreme measures to reconnect herself with the loved ones she lost.  The movie heads into some very dark territory with her character, revealing that she is a pawn in a satanic cult’s ulterior plans, which have been placed upon her family for some time.  And Toni Collette magnificently navigates the unraveling of her character, while still maintaining a grounded sense of who this woman is.  In the final act of the film, we see the character of Annie fully possessed, and that’s where the character really becomes a nightmarish demon on screen.  But even beforehand, Toni is terrifying in her role as she believably makes us see this character come apart mentally.  Toni Collette’s performance has been seen by many as one of the all time best performances to never get an Oscar nomination, and people attribute this to the Academy’s bias against genre films, particularly horror.  As my other picks on this list will show there are examples where there were horror performances too good for the Academy to ignore, but they did drop the ball by ignoring Toni here.  The only thing that keeps it from being higher on this list is that the terrifying parts of her performance don’t come out until almost the very end, but what we do get is good enough to get her recognized here.

9.

BABY JANE HUDSON from WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? (1962)

Played by Bette Davis

There was a weird movement in horror during the 1960’s that people have dubbed “Hag-sploitation.”  It was a trend where horror filmmakers would create movies that centered around “scary old women” to give their stories a more gothic quality to them.  In many cases, these “Hag horror” movies would give roles to aging actresses who were not getting any other work due to the way Hollywood devalued it’s female performers once they reached a certain age, and these roles were often seen as exploitational and indicative of the end of the road for these once beloved starlets.  But this certainly wasn’t the case for Bette Davis.  Even into her senior years, Bette was still at the peak of her talent, and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? showcases just how much she still had that spark of talent and was able to completely own even a sinister “hag’ role like that of Baby Jane Hudson.  The film, interesting enough, is about an emotionally stunted former child actor who is clinging to past glory while taking out her aggression on her invalid sister played by Joan Crawford.  What starts out as passive aggressive insults eventually devolves into psychological torture and then eventually acts of murder.  And all the while, Baby Jane continues to slip deeper into insanity, which Bette Davis brilliantly displays in her performance.  By the end of the movie, she has even devolved entirely into a childlike state of mind, and this is where she is at her creepiest, especially in the way that her concept of reality becomes more fractured, and it puts her sister in greater danger as she is witnessing that downfall firsthand.  Davis’ performance certainly helps to raise Baby Jane above the otherwise bleakness of “Hag-sploitation.”  You can tell this wasn’t just a desperate ploy for work; she was really invested in playing this character and it shows.  It’s a masterful performance that even 60 years later still gives off creepy vibes and it was a benchmark role in horror filmmaking which led to a lot of imitations but none were ever able to deliver as powerfully as Bette did here.

RED from US (2019)

Played by Lupita Nyong’o

Sometimes the most terrifying kind of character is the one that looks exactly like us.  That’s the angle that Jordan Peele went with for his sophomore film as a director.  After tackling racial tension in his first film, Get Out (2017), he decided to look at class divisions in his follow-up, with a movie where affluent people on vacation are terrorized by their own doppelgangers, who seem to have come from underground laboratories and are tethered to our world while living in their hidden world under our feet; that is until they begin to rise up.  And their leader is a terrifying character named Red; the only one of the doppelgangers capable of speaking, which she does in a restricted, damaged voice.  Lupita Nyong’o plays the dual parts of Red and her “real world” counter part Adelaide, but it’s the former role where she really displays her acting talents.  Red, with her doll face like expression and husky voice is a nightmarish presence in the movie and Lupita does not hold back in making her a memorable character.  The fact that she’s the only one of the doppelgangers that displays any intelligence, as all of the others are feral by nature, makes her especially creepy.  Lupita brings this almost alien quality to the character, like she is investigating her victims while at the same time seeking malicious ends.  There is a twist revealed about the character, which does add another creepy layer to the character’s story, as well as to her relationship to Adelaide.  Lupita and Jordan Peele could have taken a more conventional route with their take on a home invasion horror scenario, but with the character of Red and the other doppelgangers, they create this twisted examination of a society where the divide between the haves and the have nots could not be more clearly defined.  And when we see our own selves presented back to us through the unnerving, almost frozen expression on Red’s doll like face, it clearly sends the message of the danger that lies beneath the surface of our class divides.

7.

LONGLEGS from LONGLEGS (2024)

Played by Nicholas Cage

This recent horror flick is already developing a reputation for being one of the creepiest in the last couple years, and part of that is due to an unexpectedly chilling performance from Nicholas Cage as the titular serial killer.  The film itself is a bit like Fincher’s Se7en (1995), only with more supernatural elements mixed into it’s murder mystery.  It’s a slow burn horror flick that takes place in an era where “Satanic Panic” was taking hold in pop culture, and the movie takes that theme to the extreme.  What is clever about the movie is that the mystery is not about who is committing the murders, but how and why, and when we get our answers it’s not what you’d expect.  Nicholas Cage is an actor known for going big with any role, and sometimes that can be a curse just as much as a blessing for some films.  Here, his unpredictability as an actor actually works for the character.  This Satan worshiping doll maker named Longlegs is deeply unsettling  from the very first moment he appears on screen, and Cage’s willingness to take the character over the top adds just that extra bit of terrifying to the role.  He speaks with this creepy Michael Jackson-like squeal of a voice and his face is pale and almost plastic like the dolls he creates.  And Nicholas Cage’s penchant for unhinged outbursts really drive home the creep factor of the character, where every moment he spends on screen just gives you this spine-chilling feeling.  It’s clear that Cage was really relishing this role, and the freedom it allowed him to just create something original.  It’s one thing to create a cold, foreboding persona for a serial killer; it’s another to have him smiling and blowing kisses while singing “Happy Birthday” like Cage does as Longlegs.  I have a feeling that this is going to be a character and a performance that people are going to be talking about for a while.  For me, it is certainly the most the creepiest character I’ve seen in a long while in a movie, and proof that Nicholas Cage can be a great actor when his over the top instincts fit the right kind of role.

6.

NORMAN BATES from PSYCHO (1960)

Played by Anthony Perkins

While Cage’s Longlegs performance is fully displayed without any nuance to show us a different side of the character, Anthony Perkins on the other hand presents a very different approach to portraying a murderer.  Norman Bates is one of the great misdirects ever achieved with a character in a horror film.  When we first meet him, Norman seems like a mild-mannered road side motel manager who is devoted to caring for his mother.  Perkins perfectly portrays this everyman aspect of Norman when we first meet him.  He is harmless and soft-spoken and the character of Marion Crane (played by Janet Leigh) feels safe in his company.  But as we listen to Norman speak a bit more during the fateful night that he and Marion meet, the mask slips ever so slightly, especially when they discuss topics like Norman’s mother and the “women” who come in between him and his devotion to “mother.”  Alfred Hitchcock masterfully hides Norman Bates true nature throughout the film.  Even when Marion is murdered in her hotel room, we quickly suspect that it’s Mrs. Bates and not Norman who did the deed, and we remain sympathetic to the mild-mannered man.  But, as we move further into the plot, we learn that Norman is not what he seems, and by the end we find out that “mother” has been long gone and that Norman is the true killer.  It’s the strength of Anthony Perkin’s performance that helps to keep the rouse up throughout the film, and it makes the ultimate reveal all the more satisfying as a result.  Hitchcock’s Psycho, which itself was based on the notorious Ed Gein murders, changed the horror genre forever, and showed us that monsters are not just the creatures that spook us in the night.  It showed that even the un-assuming boy next door could turn out to be a monster as well.  And that hiding in plain sight portrayal of evil is what makes Norman Bates so terrifying.  To drive that point home, Perkins delivers one of cinema’s greatest evil smiles in his final scene, with his mother’s decomposed skull briefly superimposed over his before the shot cuts away, showing us how the face of evil can sneakily appear so harmless at first.

5.

REGAN from THE EXORCIST (1973)

Played by Linda Blair; Voiced by Mercedes McCambridge

To be fair, the character of Regan herself is not the monster that terrifies in this film, but rather it’s the demon that has come to possess her.  Even still, it’s a remarkable performance from Linda Blair to throw herself into the mayhem of her character’s possession like she does in William Friedkin’s ground-breaking horror flick.  The deterioration of Regan throughout the film is terrifying to watch, and it’s incredibly shocking when we see this once sweet little girl causing self-mutilation and speaking profanities.  As the demon takes hold even more, even her childish voice disappears and is replaced with the raspy, other-worldly voice of the demon.  Veteran actress Mercedes McCambridge contributed her own husky voice to the role of the demon and it’s a remarkable vocal performance, making the demon sound unlike anything of this world.  Mercedes probably relished saying the shocking lines that the demon utters in the film, like “Your mother s**** c**** in Hell,” because not only were they barrier pushing for their time, but there was the added shocking factor that those words were coming out of a child; albeit a possessed one.  A lot of credit is due to Linda Blair perfectly lip-synching to the demonic voice as well.  For a movie like The Exorcist to work, the audience needed to buy into the belief that the demonic possession they were watching felt real.  The results from Linda and Mercedes performances not only made it feel real, they made Regan’s possession feel like evil literally captured on the screen before us.  It had to be daunting for an actress Linda’s age, and there are stories of Freidkin’s set being a bit hazardous at times, but she displayed a command of the role that you wouldn’t expect a young actor to have, especially when their job is to scare the daylights out of the audience.  And what her performance ended up giving us is one of cinema’s most terrifying performances ever.

4.

JACK TORRENCE from THE SHINING (1980)

Played by Jack Nicholson

Much like Toni Collette’s descent into madness in Hereditary, we see the same change in character from Jack Torrence in The Shining, only the fall is much, much bigger in this acclaimed adaptation of the Stephen King novel.  Jack Nicholson is another actor who likes to go big in his roles, and Stanley Kubrick very much let him go big here.  What’s great about Nicholson’s performance is that the build to insanity isn’t so much gradual as it is taking things one step further after starting in an already heightened place.  Jack Torrence is first introduced as even-keeled in the beginning, but the wheels begin coming off not too far from that, especially as isolation begins to take it’s toll on the character’s psyche.  Nicholson’s performance is quintessentially him, with himself ratcheting his own persona beyond it’s limits.  By the time he reaches his full murderous state, Nicholson’s performance becomes truly a nightmarish presence.  We get our first taste of the worst of his character during the “All work and No play” scene when he confronts his wife Wendy (played brilliantly by the late great Shelly Duvall), and it’s effectively creepy how he is able to scare us while also doing so with a smile.  And the of course there’s the climatic chase through the Overlook Hotel where the ax-wielding Jack pokes his face through the door and screams out “here’s Johnny.”  It makes it all the scarier that he’s playing around with his victims while hunting them down in a murderous rage.  By the end of the film, there is zero subtlety left in Nicholson’s performance, but that really is what makes him so effectively terrifying in that final stretch; just the unhinged nature of his character at that point.  That’s the scariest kind of evil, when the person you loved no longer feels anything but blinding rage, and seems to enjoy using their power to terrorize you.  The story leads us to believe that the Overlook turned Jack towards evil, but the movie and Jack Nicholson’s performance also indicates to us that Jack Torrence didn’t need that much of a push to go off the deep end, and they show that to us in quite a spectacular way.

3.

ANNIE WILKES from MISERY (1990)

Played by Kathy Bates

Staying with Stephen King for one more film, we find an example of a horror film performance so good that the Academy was wise not to ignore it.  Kathy Bates star making turn as Annie Wilkes in Misery did earn her a much deserved Oscar for Best Actress, and it’s a role that managed to display incredible acting chops on the part of Bates as well as be terrifying and not watered down at all in order to fit the Academy’s standards.  The character of Annie Wilkes seems to be an externalized expression of fear on the part of Stephen King, as she is the epitome of toxic fandom in the extreme.  What is interesting about Bates performance is that she appears warm and matronly at first, but only a couple scenes later we see her turn into a rage monster that snaps over the most minor of infractions.  There is clearly something going on with the psyche of Annie Wilkes, but Kathy Bates is wise to not soften her character too much.  Annie is a monster to be sure, and the strength of Bates performance is in showing the full range of dangerous extremes that Annie can go to at any time.  Perhaps the best example of Kathy Bates’ brilliance in her performance is the most famous scene in the movie when Annie has the writer Paul Sheldon (a great James Caan) tied to the bed, where she plans to hobble him by purposely breaking his feet with a sledgehammer.  The best part of that scene is just how soothing and calm Annie is, right before she does the shockingly violent act.  It makes her all the terrifying as a result; how disassociated she is from the horror she is inflicting.  Kathy Bates certainly goes over the top too with the character through some rage filled explosions, but it’s those quieter moments of madness that really give us the chilling effect.  Creating a character like her must have been cathartic for Stephen King as he probably encountered one too many fans who displayed a little bit of obsessiveness themselves; though not to the extreme that we see with Annie Wilkes.  I think it’s that familiarity with the character (her obsessiveness and rigid conformity) that makes her one of cinema’s most terrifying characters; evil personified with sugar-coated sweetness.

2.

COUNT ORLOCK from NOSFERATU (1922)

Played by Max Schreck

It’s amazing that one of the earliest horror movies still manages to hold up over a century later, and the same goes for the terrifying performance at it’s center.  Director F.W. Murnau was unable to secure the rights to the novel Dracula from the Bram Stoker estate, so he crafted a vampire story of his own that was still fairly close to the original.  Nosferatu became the first ever vampire movie, and much of the rules of horror cinema stems directly from this ground breaking film.  The vampire at it’s center, Count Orlock, is vividly brought to life by the unforgettable Max Schreck.  The lanky build and statuesque height of the actor creates this image of an otherworldly creature, and it’s a nightmarish image that still sticks with audiences today.  It’s especially terrifying when we see him standing at the end of a dark corridor in the middle of the night, and even more terrifying when he later stands in the frame of a doorway about to enter the room to feed on his prey.  Murnau effectively creates this sense of terror without having Schreck do much action at all.  It’s all about how Count Orlock’s mere presence creates this foreboding atmosphere in every scene that he’s in.  Murnau also makes brilliant use of shadows to invoke the vampire’s presence even when he’s not physically on screen.  The performance that Schreck gave was so convincing that speculation rose that he was an actual vampire, which became the basis for a behind the scenes biopic called Shadow of the Vampire (2000), where he was played by Willem Dafoe.  We have since seen Dracula brought to the screen many times, including brilliantly the first time by Bela Lugosi, but even in all his many versions, I don’t think there has been a Dracula that has terrified audiences the same way as Count Orlock.  For a 100 year old movie to still have the ability to terrify it’s audience is a real testament to the effectiveness of Schreck’s performance, and we owe every portrayal of vampires in cinema to the high bar that he set with his spine-chilling on screen portrayal.

1.

HANNIBAL LECTER from THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991)

Played by Anthony Hopkins

For all the critics who look down on acting found in horror movies, it should be noted that what many regard as one of the greatest performances ever committed to celluloid did in fact come from a horror movie.  Anthony Hopkin’s became a cinema icon with his portrayal of the hyper intellectual cannibal behind bars in this Oscar winning Jonathan Demme film.  It’s interesting to note that Dr. Hannibal Lecter, for as terrifying as he is, is not the main antagonist of the movie, nor is he an obstacle for the hero Clarice Starling (an equally brilliant Jodie Foster) as he spends the movie as her ally in her search for the “Buffalo Bill” serial killer.  But make no mistake, Hannibal is still a monster and the movie does such an effective job making every moment in his presence the stuff of nightmares.  The brilliance of Jonathan Demme’s direction is that he puts the camera right in the faces of his actors.  Anthony Hopkins delivers his chilling performance while looking right down the barrel of the camera, making his presence feel all the more invasive.  It’s also unsettling that we rarely see him blinking as well.  With Hannibal Lecter, it’s not about what he does that terrifies, but the way he casts a pallor of foreboding over a scene with his methodical way of talking and the stillness of his movements.  He’s like a demon that you feel waiting for you in the darkness, only he’s here fully lit and we are unable to escape his piercing gaze.  The movie still shows us how dangerous he can be with the prison break scene, where he goes on a bloody spree of violence after spending the whole rest of the movie behind bars.  Hopkins’ Oscar win for the role was a no-brainer, and he would continue to bring the character back to the screen in subsequent sequels and prequels.  But it’s here in The Silence of the Lambs  that we see him at his most terrifying.  No other performance on screen makes you feel like the villain is piercing right into your soul and haunting you without doing much at all.  It’s that psychological terror that makes Anthony Hopkin’s performance as Hannibal Lecter the most terrifying ever put on screen.  It raised the bar in portraying terror on screen, and showed that even horror could raise the bar high for all cinematic acting in general.

So, there you have my choices for the most terrifying performances ever in movies.  Some are more obvious than others, but what I find interesting is how well older horror films have held up over the years in showcasing great performances that still can terrify audiences today.  Anthony Perkin’s portrayal as Norman Bates is still a brilliant bait and switch that can still shock audiences, as well as Bette Davis giving us one of the most vivid portrayals of madness on screen as Baby Jane Hudson.  And then of course there’s Max Schreck whose chilling portrayal of a vampire is still the gold standard for the sub-genre 100 years after the fact.  Also the fact that both Anthony Hopkins and Kathy Bates have won Academy Awards for their unapologetic horror movie performances shows that the genre is just as capable of presenting quality acting as any other genre out there.  Recent examples like Toni Collette in Hereditary and Lupita Nyong’o show that great actors can still deliver their best work in scary movies, and I feel like Nicholas Cage’s recent work in Longlegs will also stand the test of time and be regarded as one of the best in the genre.  What is great about all the performances on this list is that they displayed great acting while also accomplishing the goal of being scary.  It shows that you don’t have to water down a terrifying performance in order to get critical praise.  Are there bad performances in horror movies?  Sure, but no more so than any other genre.  The low budget stigma surrounding horror movies seems to have also extended to the perceptions of the performances given in them as well, but that seems to have changed in the last few years as more and more A-listers are looking to spread their wings in the horror genre.  While it can sometimes be risky, horror movies tend to do better when they allow their actors to abandon their guardrails and just let loose, and that seems to be what is appealing to actors more and more these days.  There is a freeing aspect to what the horror genre can do for actors who just want to do something wild and weird every now and then.  And as this list has shown, some of those unhinged performances turn into some of our favorite performances.  That’s the blessing of horror in Hollywood; it gives it’s talent the chance to be weird, wacky and unbound in a genre where all that is valued.  And as we’ve seen, the best actors alive have been the ones who have scared us the most.

Editorials

Seeing Dead People – The Sixth Sense 25 Years Later and the Shift in Scary Movies in the New Millennium

The horror movie genre looks a lot different today than it did a quarter century ago.  While some things haven’t changed, like Hollywood chasing success in the genre with an endless number of sequels, the style of horror movies is much different, and that is due to a shift to a more auteur driven flow within the genre.  One thing that has made horror movies so appealing to the movie studios in Hollywood is that they are a low risk, high reward product for them to invest in.  Horror movies tend to be cheap to make and are able to perform well at the box office, meaning that it’s a genre with a track record of profitability.  Unfortunately, during the 80’s and 90’s, the cheapness of horror movies became much more of a defining feature of the genre.  The movies of that era could never be considered high art, and were for the most part just manufactured to put butts into seats, typically from less discerning teenage and college age audiences that just wanted cheap thrills.  But even those demographics were growing tiresome of the same old tricks that the Hollywood was giving us in the horror genre.  Particularly towards the end of the 90’s, horror had just been reduced to schlock, with emphasis on cheap jump scares and gross out gore as a means of entertaining their audiences.  There were bright spots to be sure, like Wes Craven’s iconic Scream (1996), but even that got drowned out by a dozen Scream clones that followed in it’s wake.  Horror was in desperate need of a re-evaluation, which for a lot of people was a desire to take the control of the genre out of Hollywood executive offices and back into the hands of filmmakers who had a real hunger for changing the rules of the genre.  Horror films has been a great breeding ground in the past for visionary directors, such as George A. Romero, John Carpenter, and Brian DePalma.  Even Steven Spielberg technically sprung out of thriller filmmaking with movies like Duel (1971) and Jaws (1975).  But what kind of filmmaker would arise in the turn of the millennium to cause a dramatic shift in the horror movie genre.

I think very few people saw the rise of one M. Night Shyamalan coming.  Born in India before his family moved to the States when he was still a baby, Shymalan grew up in the suburbs of Philadelphia, developing a desire for filmmaking at an early age.  Him and his childhood friends would get together and make short films, so by the time he started attending the Tisch School of the Arts’ elite film program, he already had a good knowledge of visual storytelling.  From these early exercises in filmmaking, he demonstrated a fondness for dark thrillers and tense horror.  He looked to influences like Alfred Hitchcock and Rod Serling in shaping the the way he told stories with a darker edge.  But upon graduating from film school, he didn’t immediately jump into the horror genre right away.  His first feature film was a semi-autobiographical drama called Praying with Anger (1992), and his follow-up after that was a feel good coming of age story called Wide Awake (1998).  At the same time, he was also drafted to write a screenplay for the live action adaptation of Stuart Little (1999).  None of these early film would have led you to know where he was about to go next as a filmmaker.  While he probably appreciated the work he was getting, it’s also apparent that he really wanted to make the kind of movie that he would want to watch, and that’s what drove him to create his first horror movie.  He sent his spec script for his take on a “ghost” story to multiple studios, and found a surprising interested party in David Vogel, the then head of production at Disney.  Vogel belived in Shymalan’s script so much that he agreed to the $3 million dollars for the rights, and the stipulation for Shymalan to direct, without the corporate approval of the Disney higher ups.  It was gamble, but as we all would see, it was a gamble that payed out in a major way.

The Sixth Sense went into production in the Fall of 1998, shooting entirely in M. Night’s home base of Philadelphia.  Unfortunately, David Vogel’s stunt in getting the rights cost him his position at Disney, as he was dismissed shortly after.  Disney would allow the production to move forward, but the budget would be heavily trimmed down.  In many ways, this would’ve destroyed the visions of most filmmakers wanting to shape their movie the way they wanted, but M. Night was able to make lemonade out of those lemons.  No stranger to working with non-existent budgets in his home movie days, Shymalan found ways to create an effective horror movie with the constraints that were thrust upon him.  He relied on old school techniques from the early days of horror, like the use of atmosphere and tricks with lighting to evoke a sense of terror in his scenes.  The film has no post-production visual effects added, and only a few instances where his ghost actors appear in make-up.  As we would see, that is all that was needed in the end.  One of the most effective tricks shown in the movie is another old school slight of hand where actress Toni Colette exits her kitchen and goes into the other room with the camera following her and once she re-enters the kitchen, all of the cabinet doors are open.  Of course, those in the know with regards to filmmaking obviously can put together that once the kitchen is out of view of the camera, a bunch of production assistants swarm in and open all of those cabinet doors before the room is in the camera’s view again.  It’s simple, but effective if you do it right and Shymalan makes it work in his movie.  With The Sixth Sense, Shymalan is not creating just another schlocky horror film; nor was he making something that hadn’t been done before in horror filmmaking either.  He was simply using the art of cinema to tell a horror story really effectively and make old tricks feel new again.  In a time when horror was loud and ugly, Shymalan made something that managed to thrill effectively through it’s minimalism.

It certainly helped that he had a cast who effectively contributed to this more muted style of horror filmmaking.  At the time, the movie actually benefitted from the collapse of another movie.  Bruce Willis was contracted by Disney to complete 3 films, the first of which was the blockbuster Armageddon (1998).  Unfortunately, the second film on that contract, Broadway Brawler, imploded after Willis demanded the firing of the director.  That film never got back on track and the studio needed to find another project quick to allow Willis to fulfill the obligations of his contract.  This is where the arrival of The Sixth Sense proved to be fortuitous, because it was movie that was a departure from the usual films that Bruce Willis had been a part of which were typically action oriented, and would allow him to show more range as an actor.  The part of Dr. Malcolm Crowe gave Willis a chance to be subtle, and even charming at times; a welcome departure from the gruffness of his past roles.  But, while it was beneficial for M. Night Shymalan to have a big name movie star in his film, it mattered a lot more to get the casting right for the crucial character of Cole Sear; the little boy who can “see dead people.”  The crux of the movie is dependent on the ability for the audience to believe that this young boy can see the dead, and that’s a difficult thing for a young actor to nail on screen.  Luckily for Shymalan, he found his Cole in a young up-and-coming star named Haley Joel Osment.  Osment, who had previously played the small part of Forrest Gump’s son opposite Tom Hanks a couple years back, showed acting talent beyond his years in the harrowing performance that he gives as Cole Sear.  It also mattered a great deal that his chemistry on screen with Bruce Willis was believable.  The interactions between Willis and Osment are definitely among the highlights of the movie, with Willis showing a vulnerability on screen that we typically had not see him show.  The film also features an incredible performance from Toni Collette as Cole’s mom Lynn.  Her performance is a heartbreaking one in which she tries everything she can to help her son who is “different.”  And there is a remarkable cameo role from former boy band singer Donnie Wahlberg (brother of Mark) as a disgruntled former patient of Malcolm Crowe, a role that Wahlberg apparently lost nearly 50 pounds for in order to give himself a gaunt look.  It was a blessing of all the right actors coming together for the roles that would indeed propel them to greater things later on.

Of course, the biggest key to the success of M. Night Shymalan’s The Sixth Sense was The Twist Ending.  This was probably the thing that made David Vogel jump so many hurdles in order to secure the rights.  Fair warning, I am about to spoil the twist ending of the film in this paragraph, so if you haven’t seen the movie by now skip ahead.  In the closing moments of the film, it is revealed that Dr. Malcolm Crowe has been dead for the majority of the movie and that he has been appearing as a ghost the whole time.  The only reason audiences didn’t originally pick up on that is because we see him interacting with Cole Sear, a boy who can see and interact with ghosts.  It’s only in retrospect that we realize that Cole is the only character that we’ve seen Malcolm speak directly too.  In the reveal that comes in the end, where Malcolm realizes he is a ghost, that all the puzzle pieces that Shymalan had been laying out start to make sense.  The effectiveness of the twist lies in the fact Shymalan doesn’t just pull it out of thin air; all of the clues were in plain sight, but with the way the story was being told, as it focuses on Cole’s journey, those clues are not at the forefront of our minds until the twist makes us see the story again in a completely different light.  It’s something that Shymalan learned from one of his inspirations, the master of twist endings Rod Serling, who utilized them brilliantly in many episodes of The Twilight Zone.  What was also crucial was that, like many of Serling’s most memorable twist endings, there had to be catharsis with it; that the audience would feel rewarded if it picked up on all the clues, but also not feel dejected if they hadn’t.  It took careful planning for Shymalan to not give away the fact that one of his main characters was dead the whole time, but he had to make sure that the clues would be recognizable by the end.  For this, he borrowed another trick from another one of his inspirations; Hitchcock.  Alfred Hitchcock famously used color coding as a way of signaling the presence of danger, something that he most famously used in Vertigo (1958).  In The Sixth Sense, Shymalan uses the color red to signify when a ghost was present in the scene.  Sometimes this was shown overtly, like when Cole is visited by a ghost girl, played by a young Mischa Barton.  She appears after Cole hides in his bedroom play tent, which of course is a bright color of red.  This helps tie the color to the appearance of ghosts, but when we learn the truth about Malcolm at the end, we sudden notice all those subtle hints of red that were present throughout the movie whenever he meets with Cole.  All of these ingredients helped to give the movie the effective twist ending that it needed and boy did it pay off in a big way.

Part of why The Sixth Sense made the impact that it did was also due to the fact that it came out in the middle of a turning point for the horror genre.  Earlier that same summer in 1999, The Blair Witch Project (1999) premiered and completely turned Hollywood on it’s head.  This found footage horror movie made on a shoe-string budget with a simple digital camera and no-name actors remarkably opened at number one at the box office and grossed an astounding $140 million.  While the gimmick itself was probably what lured a lot of people to the movie theaters to check out this oddity for themselves, it also revealed a craving from audiences for something different in the increasingly stale horror genre.  The Blair Witch Project filled that void perfectly with it’s unconventional way of telling it’s story.  But surprisingly, The Sixth Sense would also benefit from this change in audiences’ taste as well.  While The Sixth Sense was more mainstream than the experimental Blair Witch, it also stood out as being very different from the other horror films of that era.  It wasn’t a slasher thriller; it wasn’t a jump scare fest; and it wasn’t a blood soaked gore fest.  It was an atmospheric ghost story with some mystery elements thrown in.  And for audiences, that was enough.  In many ways, M. Night Shymalan was harkening back to the auteur driven horror movies of the 1970’s, many of which were slower burns than the in your face aggressiveness of the 80’s and 90’s.  Movies like William Friedkin’s The Exorcist (1973) or Richard Donner’s The Omen (1976) take their time in building their scares to a crescendo, and Shymalan makes his film even more low key than those.  It’s not about how many times you can scare an audience, but by how well you can scare them.  Shymalan brought atmosphere back into the forefront of horror filmmaking, and the effect it had was very evident on the horror movies that have come in it’s wake.

One of the strongest legacies that The Sixth Sense has left behind is the way that it brought horror back into the hands of the filmmakers.  The genre has been much more driven by style and the unique visions of it’s filmmakers.  In the wake of The Sixth Sense,  Hollywood was interested in finding out who would be the next M. Night Shymalan; a question that even Shymalan has struggled to define for himself.  There certainly has been a resurgence in the number of film directors that have emerged as uniquely tied to the genre of horror films.  James Wan is one of those filmmakers that managed to emerge from the horror genre with a clearly defined trademark to his name.  He helped to shepherd the Saw and Conjuring franchises into some of the most lucrative horror series in recent years, and he continues to develop new horror concepts that appeal to modern audiences.  The interesting thing is, his horror movie are wildly varied, from the gory Saw films to the subtler scares of The Conjuring.  Likewise, other horror filmmakers like Ari Aster are re-defining the things that we find scary on the big screen, like how he terrified us with a Scandinavian paganism in Midsommar (2019).  And there are other recent horror filmmakers like Mike Flanagan, Leigh Whannell and Parker Finn who are generating effective scares through the mainstream machine of Hollywood with old standards like Stephen King, Universal Monsters, and just even the simple act of a sinister smile.  Horror has gone through a complete transformation in the last quarter century thanks to what The Sixth Sense and The Blair Witch Project left behind.  It’s honestly now the genre where we see the most creativity allowed for filmmakers, because it’s one of the few avenues where experimentation is rewarded.  In many ways, this is a golden era for the genre, and it’s something that Shymalan thankfully pushed Hollywood into accepting.

When it first released in the waning Summer days of August 1999, The Sixth Sense opened to a respectable but not extraordinary $26 million.  But remarkably, it continued to gross the same amount weekend after weekend, $20 million for 6 weeks straight; a feat only Titanic (1997) had a achieved before.  This was a true phenomenon that Hollywood couldn’t quite figure out at first.  What we witnessed with Sixth Sense’s unprecedented run was one of the first truly viral movies, where word of mouth played a major role in driving up it’s box office.  While people raved about the craft of the film, it was that perfectly executed twist ending that really brought audiences back again and again.  Shymalan created an experience with The Sixth Sense, and not just a product like so many horror movies of the last decade were.  In the end, The Sixth Sense grossed an astonishing $293 million at the box office, making it the highest grossing horror film ever at that time, a title it would hold for 18 years before 2017’s IT surpassed it’s record.  The film would also go on to earn 6 Oscar nominations, including for Best Picture and for Haley Joel Osment and Toni Collette in their supporting roles.  Bruce Willis would also walk away from with $100 million through his back end profits deal when he accepted the role for initially less than his average salary.  Since then, Shymalan has struggled in the shadow of his greatest achievement.  He’s had success here and there, including with Signs (2002) and Split (2016), but he’s been a filmmaker who’s unfortunately been boxed in by his own style of filmmaking, which hasn’t gotten better over time.  Thankfully, Haley Joel Osment has been able to survive the usual pitfalls that can ruin child actors and he’s aged into adulthood fairly well as a beloved character actor, including returns to the horror genre with movies like the recent Blink Twice (2024), co-starring Channing Tatum.  Toni Collette likewise has excelled in her returns to horror, including her acclaimed performance in Hereditary (2018).  While M. Night Shymalan may have become a victim of his own success and struggled as a filmmaker in the years after, there’s still no denying that he crafted a masterful film with The Sixth Sense.  In all of it’s subtleties, it re-freshened a genre that was in desperate need of a transformation, and the great thing is that he managed to make it happen with tricks of the trade that used to be staples of the horror genre that had sadly been forgotten over time.  With hints of Hitchcock and the Twilight Zone present in his movie, he managed to show us what a horror movie used to be and could once again become again, and this helped to usher in a new era of experimentation in horror filmmaking that we are still seeing today.  We have The Sixth Sense to thank for the slow burn intensity of artsy horror like we see in films such as Skinamarink (2022) and Longlegs (2024); movies that don’t force scares on you but still fill you with a sense of terror while you watch it.  It’s unbelievable that a little movie about a child who “sees dead people” would be the kind of movie to change Hollywood horror for many years after.

Off the Page

Off the Page – Coraline

Neil Gaiman has emerged as one of the most unique voices in modern literature over the last couple of decades.  The British author has particularly had a hand in creating a renewed interest in fantasy literature, especially when it comes to darker themed fantasy.  Gaiman himself cites the likes of J.R.R. Tolkein and Lewis Carroll as inspirations in his writing, and it’s interesting how he has carved out his own voice the literary world.  Not only has he made a name for himself with the written word, but he has also become a celebrated writer in the field of comic books as well.  The common theme that seems to appear in most of his writing is the idea of mythical and celestial beings existing in a modern world setting.  It’s a theme that pops up in most of his works.  His first novel, Good Omens, involved a familial relationship between a literal angel and a demon.  American Gods told a story about the gods of the old world making their way through life in the New World of modern day America.  Even his run of Sandman comics for DC involved the clashing of heaven and hell on earth.  But even with all of the literal biblical sized elements that he throws into his stories, his writing is also focused on the humanity that often comes into conflict with these world shaping elements.  Perhaps the best illustration of his ability to ground the fantastical in a contemporary, ordinary world is found in what was his first foray into children’s literature.  Of course, when we say children’s literature from the pen of Neil Gaiman, it’s still in the genre of horror fantasy.  His version of a story appropriate for young readers is within the same context of the works of the Brothers Grimm being appropriate for young readers.  He softens his edges, but still creates for his readers a spooky and at times also disturbing atmosphere.  And that’s the story we find in his 2002 novella, Coraline.

Coraline tells the story of a young girl who finds that her new home is not what it seems.  The titular heroine is at odds with her parents after their move, and wishes for an escape.  She finds that escape when she finds a door in the back of the house to another house identical to her own, only livelier and more welcoming.  There she finds a woman identical to her mother, only with buttons sewn onto her face instead of eyes.  This “Other Mother” is generous and attentive in a way that her own Mother has not been, and Coraline grows more fond of this “Other World.”  As he seems more inclined to stay in Other World, she soon realizes there is a catch; to live there, she must sew buttons into her own eyes just like the other residents there.  She of course refuses, and begins to see the Other Mother for who she truly is, a deceptive creature called the Beldam, who begins to grow  more grotesque after the pleasing facade has fallen.  Coraline manages to return to the real world, but her family is nowhere to be found.  It is here that Coraline realizes the cost of taking her parents love for granted, and favoring her own comfort and happiness over the needs of the family as a whole.  From this point, she determines to find her real family, and in the process, she learns of the horrible history that her new home has had with the Beldam lurking behind the hidden door.  Overall, it is a spooky sort of haunted house story that Neil Gaiman manages to craft that certainly is provocative without ever being gory.  You can definitely see the Lewis Carroll influence, as the Other World is a twisted take on the concept of Wonderland, where it takes on a sinister character after making too much sense instead of nonsense.  When the novella was first published, it was instantly successful, earning Gaiman among other things a Hugo Award.  A couple years later, Gaiman would oversee a graphic novel adaptation, which was published in 2008.  The graphic novel gave readers the first visual representation of Gaiman’s imaginative world, and as it turned out, it would be just an appetizer as Coraline was about to make the jump to the big screen.

“How can you walk away from something and then come towards it?”

Enter Laika Animation studios.  Laika had just emerged after a rebranding of the old Will Vinton Studios, which had been the stop motion workshop that had been animating shorts and commercials since the 1970’s, famous for the California Raisins among other things.  Due to growing health issues, Will Vinton was looking to pass his Portland, Oregon studio off to new management that he hoped would continue the stop motion tradition after he was gone.  A former animator who work at his studio was Travis Knight, who just so happened to be the son of Nike founder Phil Knight, and he managed to convince him father to invest in Vinton’s ailing studio.  Vinton retired in 2005 and shortly after Travis Knight took over management of the studio, re-branding it Laika Animation.  Knight wasted no time in turbo-charging the output of his new studio, quickly looking for a project to develop into a feature film that he hoped would put the studio on the map.  Given that stop motion already has this other-worldly feel to it, so a story like Neil Gaiman’s Coraline was a match made in heaven for Laika.  The story had all the elements that was ideal for the studio, a spooky story that could still appeal to all audiences and allow for them to flex their arms creatively, especially with the construction of the “Other World.”  And to also show that Laika was serious about getting the tone of the book right, they sought out some veteran help by hiring Henry Selick to direct the feature.  Selick, of course, famously directed the classic stop motion feature, The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) for Disney and producer Tim Burton.  The success of that film led to a follow-up adaptation of Roald Dahl’s James and the Giant Peach (1996), but the souring of the working relationship between Selick and Burton eventually led to the former leaving their partnership in pursuit of a different creative path.  This was fortuitous for Laika, as they wanted their house style to evoke the weird and imaginative sights that both Nightmare and Giant Peach both shared.  Bringing Selick on board would prove to be exactly what their Coraline project needed, as it gave the film the fully realized vision that it needed.

“You probably think this world is a dream come true.  But you’re wrong.”

So, what did Laika manage to do to give Coraline the cinematic treatment.  Gaiman’s story already lent itself very well to the visual form as the graphic novel demonstrated.  On the whole, Laika didn’t make a whole lot of changes to the story itself; it plays out pretty much as it did on the page, with some notable but not too drastic alterations.  Perhaps the most noticeable difference is that Laika decided to give their setting a bit more character.  Neil’s novel is set in no particular place, with only the house itself being the primary setting for the story.  It’s presumed that Neil sets his story in his home country of England, as the house he describes is reminiscent of the old manor houses that dot the English countryside.  Laika on the other hand gave Coraline a decidedly American setting, and in fact the studio chose it’s own back yard as the place to set this story.  The movie takes place in the town of Ashland, Oregon, which is a real town nestled just north of the California state border.  It’s a small cultural community known for it’s yearly Shakespearean Festival.  If you’re wondering why the movie has citizens from the town reciting quotes from the Bard, that’s the reason why.  It’s an interesting choice to set the story there, because while Ashland can be an inviting place, it’s also a bit cut off, being surrounded by mountains and farms.  The often gloomy Oregon weather also plays well with the atmosphere of the story.  But what is interesting is that Laika also makes the “real world” in their movie stylized as well.  Both the realms of reality and fantasy have the same off-kilter look; the big difference is the way that the different realms are colored.  Coraline’s reality is muted and washed out, while “Other World,” is bright and colorful.  This is an effective way to differentiate the two, with the more sinister side appearing initially to be the more appealing of the two.  The effect is still the same with regards to the story, which works to Laika’s advantage.  They are able to make even the real world visually interesting, without sacrificing the impact of seeing the “Other World,” and in the end it gives the movie as a whole a vibrancy of style.

The characters for the most part are pretty similar to their literary counterparts.  One change that is made to the characterization is that the movie does not carry over Gaiman’s use of the first person narration from Coraline herself.  Coraline is still the main character here, but we are experiencing the story with her, rather than having her recount it for us.  Apart from that, she is the same character described in the book; spunky and free spirited, but still flawed due to her abrasiveness, especially when she shows it to her parents.  The story is a coming of age tale and through it we see Coraline grow into a more responsible character, not letting personal interests and desires get in the way of doing what’s right.  The animators definitely made her distinct, with the matching of her yellow rain coat and blue dyed hair creating an instantly iconic profile.  She’s also given great personality by a then teenage Dakota Fanning in her vocal performance.  Her work in the film is also complimented by a surprisingly complex vocal performance by Teri Hatcher as both Coraline’s mom and as “Other Mother” aka the Beldam.  Hatcher remarkably plays her role with incredible range, showcasing so many different variations on the same character; being warm and inviting at one point and then terrifyingly shrill by the end.  The Beldam is also a character where the animators got to be more creative in their designs.  Neil Gaiman described the creature as looking just like Coraline’s mother, except taller, thinner and paler, and obviously with those unsightly button eyes.  In the film, the Beldam goes through multiple transformations, at times being similar to what Gaiman described, but done one step further.  By the end, the Beldam is almost insect like, with metal needles as spider legs.  It makes for a truly terrifying villain for the story, and one that very much could only be fully realized in this style of animation.  All of the other characters are much like their counterparts in the book, with the animators using their creativity to give them all exaggerated bodies.  Coraline’s neighbors in particular are fun caricatured designs, like her downstairs neighbors Miss Spink and Miss Forcible having extreme “curves”, and her upstairs neighbor Mr. Bobinsky having blue skin.  The one character that seems to be the most direct pull is The Cat, who in the movie speaks with the distinct voice of Keith David.  He’s a character that definitely feels like he jumped right off the page, and he’s very much present in much of the promotions of the movie, including appearing as part of the logo.

“Even if you win, she’ll never let you go.”

There is one character that was original to the movie that made a significant change to the story.  The film added another neighbor named Wybie to the plot; a boy around Coraline’s age that doesn’t live in the same house like the rest of Coraline’s neighbors but nevertheless still hangs around the property.  He starts off as a bit of a nuisance to Coraline, being a bit of a weirdo that talks too much.  But, when Coraline begins to investigate deeper into the mystery of the house she lives in, she learns that Wybie’s family has a dark past related to it.  Wybie tells her that his grandmother lost a sister when they used to live in the same house.  The sister disappeared one day and was never seen again.  It’s only after Coraline challenges the “Other Mother’s” authority that she comes face to face with the truth.  The house is haunted by the spirits of children, all of whom were captured and eaten by the Beldam, who lured them into the “Other World” the same way that Coraline was.  This revelation is found in the original book, but the fact that one of the ghost children is related to Coraline’s new friend in the real world gives the revelation a much more personal angle.  It hits home a lot more that Coraline knows what fate she’s about to face after becoming aware of Wybie’s great aunt’s own grisly fate.  It helps to elevate the threat of the Beldam in the story and it gives Coraline a bit more purpose in the story.  Not only is she going to face off against the Beldam for her own survival, but she also is doing it to seek justice for those who were not able to escape.  It definitely gives Coraline a bit more urgency in her story, showing that she is thinking through her ordeal as she presses forward.  The inclusion of Wybie in the story also gives Coraline a character that she can relate with on a personable level.  As she finds out, Wybie is the only one who believes her after she has passed into a different world, with all the adults dismissing her childish “fantasies” as just that.  It’s interesting that in the “Other World,” the Beldam has also created an “Other Wybie” whose mouth has been sewn shut.  Perhaps the fact that “Other Mother” went to the extra effort to keep “Other Wybie” silent is what convinces Coraline to take the words of the real one more seriously, and that’s an interesting new wrinkle added into the plot of the film.

What the movie and book both effectively realize is the theme of confronting fears head on as a positive sign of maturity.  For Coraline, she appears on the surface to be a fearless pre-teen girl whose adventurous spirit leads her to explore the unknown.  But all of that fearlessness to what’s in front of her also puts a wedge between her and her parents.  Her fear is internalized; she is afraid to open up to her parents and tell them she loves them, because that’s a sign of immaturity in her eyes.  There’s a degree to that in every rebellious youth, but the movie and the book Coraline confronts this theme in a very vivid way.  Her fear manifests clearly when the Beldam has taken her parents away.  She realizes her greatest fear is being alone, and that because of her actions, she has ended up isolating herself, making her own fear come true.  It’s a mature theme to explore in a coming of age story like this, and it’s interesting to see how Coraline comes to the realization that having everything come to her on her terms is actually what has made her world come apart.  Once the Beldam shows her true form, and the “Other World” begins to slowly crumble apart, we see all the old things that made the “Other World” so inviting before suddenly become the things of nightmares.  In her quest to save her parents, all of the different encounters with the “Other” residents of the house become twisted and nightmarish moments in the final act of the film.  And the worst is saved for last when she has to face the Beldam face to ugly face, all the more disturbing when the creature is still faintly like her mother.  Another interesting element that was added for the film was the idea of the Beldam luring her victims with dolls that look just like them found in the real world.  What it tells us is that the Beldam seems to sense the insecurity that a child like Coraline possesses and uses the dolls as a plant to coax out the curiosity of each child once they arrive at the house.  Neil Gaiman’s story certainly deals with all these themes, and thanks to Henry Selick’s creative vision, those themes manifest is some truly eerie and at times terrifying moments on screen.

“She wants something to love, I think.  Something that isn’t her.  Or, maybe she’d just love something to eat.”

Coraline premiered in February of 2009, but regardless of its wintertime release, it has since become a favorite for Halloween time playlists.  The film was critically well received and it had a pretty healthy box office take for a stop motion animated film.  More importantly, it put Laika Animation on the map.  In the 15 years since Coraline’s premiere, they have released four more features (2012’s ParaNorman, 2014’s The Boxtrolls, 2016’s Kubo and the Two Strings, and 2019’s Missing Link) with a fifth one currently slated for 2025 called Wildwood.  While they have struggled to repeat the same success as Coraline, each film is still highly regarded and the studio has helped to keep the prestige of stop motion animation going.  Like many other successful runs, it matters how well a studio is able to perform on it’s first go, and Laika certainly found the right story to tell with Neil Gaiman’s short modern fairy tale.  The movie itself has helped to elevate the novel itself, which when it was first published was regarded as one of Gaiman’s lesser works.  It was still loved, but it didn’t shine as brightly as Gaiman’s run of Sandman comics, or his novels Good Omens and American Gods.  What is noteworthy though is that the movie Coraline was the first actual cinematic adaptation of one of his literary works.  Since then, many of his novels have been been given adaptations, mostly for television.  Both American Gods and Good Omens were faithfully adapted into shows for Starz and Amazon Prime respectively, while Netflix managed to take his vast collection of Sandman comics and turn it into a successful mini-series.  And after 15 years, Coraline still holds up and is probably even more popular now than it was when it first premiered.  One thing that really has helped it to stand out is the fact that it’s an animated feature that’s not afraid to be a little dark.  Animation used to have a lot more darker moments than they do now, and those were the kinds of movies that have withstood the test of time.  Sometimes it doesn’t hurt to make a family friendly film have that extra little bit of peril in it, even if it becomes borderline horrific, because those end up being the scenes that we remember most from childhood on.  Coraline has the perfect mix of all that; whimsy, humor, creepy atmosphere and even a good scare here and there.

“They say even the proudest spirit can be broken…with love.”

Movie Reviews

Joker: Folie a Deux – Review

Five years ago, Warner Brothers and DC struck gold with a bold and ambitious movie centered around one of pop culture’s most infamous villains.  The movie Joker (2019) stood out from all the other comic book movies that were released towards the end of the 2010’s.  It was grounded, gritty and unforgiving in it’s tone.  The filmmaker behind it, Todd Philips was diverting far from his usual comfort zone in comedy and was taking a page from early Scorsese with this origin story centered around Gotham City’s “clown prince of crime.”  The Joker has always been a highly coveted role in the past for actors, because it’s a character that is all about extremes, especially when it comes to both humor and horror, and that’s a mix that many actors love to throw themselves into.  From Jack Nicholson to Heath Ledger, many great performances have helped to turn the Joker into a cinematic icon, but in the case of the Todd Phillips’ movie, the Joker was not just going to be a foil for the Batman this time; he was going to be the main character.  To make the movie work, they needed an actor who could not only pull off the grandiosity of the Joker persona but also someone who could find the human being underneath and make that aspect just as fascinating.  Joaquin Phoenix proved to be the ideal choice for the role, as he slipped into the clown shoes of this iconic villain and crafted an unforgettable performance that was both chilling and unhinged but also felt authentic.  The resulting film was a smash hit at the box office, becoming the first R-Rated film ever to gross over a billion dollars worldwide, a feat only matched this year by Deadpool & Wolverine (2024).  The film also received numerous accolades, including a Golden Lion from the Venice Film Festival, and 11 Oscar nominations including Best Picture.  Joaquin ended up walking away with a Best Actor win for his performance, making him the second Oscar winner for a portrayal of the Joker, after Heath Ledger’s posthumous win in 2009 for The Dark Knight (2008).  In many senses, the timing of Joker’s release could not have been better to capture the zeitgeist of the comic book movie boom.

But, the success of Joker was not without controversy.  Many people were worried that the movie painted too sympathetic a portrait of the Joker character, and in a way they believed that the film was an endorsement for anti-social, anarchic behavior that often attributes itself to the Joker persona.  Only 7 years prior, the infamous mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado was attributed to a gunman who wore make-up similar to the Joker, which is a memory that still sticks with movie-goers to this day.  Because Joker is such an evocative idea of a villain, his persona has been unfortunately usurped by dangerous radicals in the online community, including incel movements and even white supremacist groups.  For many, the idea of this origin film giving a more nuanced look at the beginnings of this famous villain was like playing with fire in an already volatile cultural moment, with so many people getting radicalized into these extremist groups, particularly angst-y young men.  Now, Todd Philips and Joaquin Phoenix have always asserted that their movie is not an endorsement of the Joker’s actions, but rather that the movie is an examination of the way that societal problems and lack of care for mental illness leads to the creation of someone as bad as the Joker.  Like with heroes, villains are not born but made as a response to problems in society and the trauma it leaves behind.  Most audiences agreed and could see the nuance of the filmmaker’s intent, but there were many others, especially those in the radicalized community, that only saw the movie as a glorification of their anti-social behavior and they adopted the movie as a vindication for their extremism.  In the wake of this movie, particularly with the unrest of the pandemic and the 2020 election that saw rioters attack the Capitol, as well as the targeting of marginalized groups under the guise of “fighting the woke,” it’s easy to see why so many people were fearful of the message that the movie was sending, even if it was misinterpreted.  Still, Joker remains a controversial yet potent film that still sparks conversations today.  And perhaps in response, Todd Phillips and company are looking to provide an answer to the volatile impact of the first movie with a sequel called Joker: Folie a Deux.  The question is, does it offer up anything new or meaningful to the discussion?

Joker: Folie a Deux takes place not long after the events of the first film.  Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) is being held at the Arkham Asylum where he is awaiting trial for murder.  His daily routine involves receiving medication to pacify his violent tendencies and he is allowed to roam around the courtyard under the watchful supervision of a group of rough and mean prison guards, led by officer Jackie Sullivan (Brendan Gleeson).  Not long before his trial starts, Sullivan decides to allow Arthur to attend an Asylum musical therapy group.  It is there that he meets another inmate at the asylum named, Harley Quinzel (Lady Gaga).  Harley it turns out has been infatuated by Arthur after seeing his crimes play out in the public eye, including the murder of talk show host Murray Franklin on live television.  Arthur takes a liking to her and they begin a courtship in the prison, leading to some mayhem along the way.  Meanwhile, Arthur’s lawyer Maryanne Stewart (Catherine Keener) is trying to soften his persona in preparation for the trial, getting him on board with the idea of pleading insanity in order to get a lighter sentence.  His defense will be that he suffers from schizophrenia and that the Joker is a separate personality created out of the years of abuse he faced at home.  His defense is of course being disputed by the city that is seeking the death penalty in response to his murders.  On the other side of the courtroom, Arthur’s attorney is having to face off against the ambitious and skilled new Assistant DA, Harvey Dent (Harry Lawtey).  But, Ms. Stewart is noticing that Arthur has been under the influence of his extremely volatile new girlfriend, and that it’s bringing out all of the bad aspects of his character into full view.  She worries that the unstable relationship that Arthur is having with Harley is going to jeopardize his chances of avoiding the death penalty because the jurors are only going to see Arthur and Joker as being one in the same.  Will Harley and Joker’s whirlwind romance ultimately lead to Arthur’s end, or is she awakening something far worse in him than was ever there before.

Perhaps the boldest choice that Todd Phillips could’ve ever made in response to the reception of the original film was to decide to follow it up with a musical.  But, that’s exactly what he did.  Folie a deux is a French term for shared psychosis, and the use of it in this title is to explain that both the Joker and Harley are both feeding the psychotic states of each other, and that is manifested in the movie through song.  Music is the language that speaks to both of them, and so we see the descent of madness they both fall into being presented in the movie as lavish musical numbers.  Keep in mind, this isn’t a movie that has a song here and there; this is a full-on musical, with songs intended to underscore the story and everything.  This idea intrigued me, because it was such a departure from the original film which was a ground, gritty drama.  I was excited to see how well this change in genre would work within the same world.  Also, I wanted to see the anti-woke crowd have a meltdown, seeing their beloved Joker franchise take a decidedly more artsy direction that runs contradictory to their worldview, and would hopefully cause them to abandon their claim on the original so that it wouldn’t be co-opted by such a bad faith group of anti-fans.  Well, I can definitely say that the meltdown among those people is happening, and they are throwing a massive fit over the direction that Joker: Folie a Deux has taken the franchise.  Unfortunately, Todd Philips didn’t give much else to this movie to make those of us on the opposite side care either.  I don’t know if Joker: Folie a Deux was too much of an over-correction for the harder edges of Joker’s message, but the movie that we got just has nothing that appeals to either the “woke” or the “anti-woke” crowd.  The musical element is ambitious, but it rings hollow and doesn’t have the desired effect of creating a sense of awe with the audience.  In many ways, this is one example where I can say that the movie is made worse by the musical numbers and not better.  And most annoyingly, it seems like Todd Philips doesn’t really have a point to make in the end.  The first Joker, for all of it’s controversy, still had a clear sense of what it wanted to say.  Here, the movie just throws a lot of different big concepts all at us at once, and none of it lands.

What’s frustrating about Joker: Folie a Deux is that it ultimately feels toothless.  It becomes clearer the further you get into the movie that Todd Phillips had nowhere to go after the first Joker.  Whatever statement he was trying to make, he already made it clear before.  So, the choice he made with this sequel was to flip genres and go full surrealist with the musical twist.  The strange thing is that the movie is still in that gritty tone of the first movie, so the switch to musical numbers feel jarring and without meaning.  And it should be noted that this is a jukebox musical, meaning that all the songs are not original to this movie.  The film utilizes old standards of classic  Hollywood, such as “That’s Entertainment,” “If They Could See Me Know,” and “Put on a Happy Face” to name a few.  And you’ll notice that a lot of the song choices are very on the nose beating you over the head with their themes.  The movie has a very La La Land (2016) feel to it, where it bounces back and forth between the fantastical and the down to earth, but it doesn’t have any of the cohesive narrative that that revisionist musical had.  Perhaps the audience that’s going to feel the most frustrated with this movie’s lack of bite and cohesion are the comic book fans.  In Joker, they got a fascinating deep dive into one of the most iconic comic book characters of all time.  With this, the comic book connection is really treated like an afterthought.  There’s not a single mention of Bruce Wayne or any of the Wayne family in this movie, which is odd to see a Joker film that doesn’t have any connection at all to Batman.  At least the last film gave a hint at that future.  This movie almost feels disconnected completely from the comic book, like it could be about any other murder trial.  It’s only occasionally you’re reminded that there’s a character named Harvey Dent in this movie, because nothing distinguishes him as a character at all, and there’s not a single hint of his future as the villain Two-Face.  The movie doesn’t have anything to say as a musical, as a comic book movie, or as a social commentary.  It’s just feels like a 2 1/2 hour epilogue to the first movie with a few songs added in.  It offers nothing more than that.

And the sad thing is there is that the movie is still well crafted from a technical standpoint.  The period recreation carried over from the first movie, which depicts a Gotham City in the same vein as late 70’s/ early 80’s New York City, still looks incredible.  Lawrence Sher, who was also the cinematographer for the first Joker, returns to do the photography for this movie.  The film was shot digitally, but the team did a great job making it look like it was made with the same kind of film stock they would’ve used on the films in the 70’s.  And when the movie does go into the dreamlike musical sequences, Sher does make them feel bold and colorful.  And while the musical numbers are hit and miss (mostly miss), the one piece of the movie that still shines bright musically is the original score by Hildur Guonadottir.  Hildur was the recipient of the first Joker’s other Oscar win for Original Score and her haunting music is a perfect fit for gritty world that this film depicts.  The eeriness of her mix of low bass strings and horns fits very well with the fractured state of Joker’s personality in this film, and the score just does such a great job of setting the melancholy mood of the film.  You almost resent the fact that the movie interrupts itself to start playing a musical number as it takes away from the beautiful music in-between.  There’s definitely skill on display, and Todd Phillips definitely shows off his knowledge of classic films as the movie references not just old school Scorsese, but also has nods to the musicals of New Hollywood as well like New York, New York (1977), All That Jazz (1979) and Hair (1979).  Even older musicals like Singin’ in the Rain (1952),The Band Wagon (1953) and The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964) get shout outs.  There is clearly love of movie musicals in this movie, but the love also seems to be misplaced.  The fact is, even with all the skill put into the musical numbers and the drama side of the story, the film never really commits to one or the other.  It’s hard to tell if there is sincerity in the musical numbers, as it feels like Phillips isn’t so much trying to create a new kind of musical as he seems to be using it more for parody.  Unfortunately, the movie never feels clever enough to get the ironic use of musical numbers to carry much of an impact.

For the musical numbers to also work, it also matters to have the right cast in place.  The musical is primarily sung through by only two performers in this movie; Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga.  Phoenix is no stranger to singing on film, as he received an Oscar nomination for playing Johnny Cash in Walk the Line (2005), a film where he didn’t do any lip-synching in playing the country music legend.  For this film, he’s called upon to do some pretty big numbers which require a powerful singing voice, and strangely he still performs in character as Arthur Fleck, who he portrays as having a weak, damaged voice.  In a way, the strain in his voice makes sense, as it shows the struggle that Arthur Fleck has in controlling his emotions, showing the psychological damage he’s still dealing with.  And when we see him fully embrace his Joker side, his voice gets much bigger and commanding.  Joaquin plays both of these sides well and there’s a lot of crazy turns that he takes with the character in this movie.  Even as his character lacks the rich development that was found in the original film, he’s nevertheless giving it his all as an actor throughout the movie.  Of course, on the singing side, the movie benefits greatly by having Lady Gaga in the cast.  Here she’s taking over a role that in past films has been memorably played by Margot Robbie.  I find it refreshing that her version of Harley Quinn is nothing like Robbie’s bubbly little anarchist.  Her performance as Harley is definitely well suited for grittier version of the Joker mythos.  The only problem is that Harley Quinn is not as important to the overall plot as she should be.  We see her be a bad influence on Arthur Fleck in prison, but we don’t learn more about Harley outside of what Arthur sees with her.  Again, like the absence of Batman, we are denied the inclusion of seeing Joker and Harley committing crime together like they do in the comic books.  Harley is just there to be a motivator for the evolution of Joker’s story, and that sadly is another disappointing underuse of the potential of the character.  But, at least she sings the hell out of her songs in the film; far and away the best singer in the cast.  There isn’t much else to say about the cast other than there’s some decent work from a good collection of character actors, such as Cathrine Keener and Brendan Gleeson.  I also want to spotlight little person actor Leigh Gill, whose witness stand scene is a highlight in the film and he manages to steal the scene with a heartbreaking performance.

Joker: Folie a Deux is not the worst movie of the year, nor is it the worst comic book movie of the year; both easily go to the travesty that was Madame Web (2024).  But I will say that this is probably the most frustrating movie of the year, because of the waste of good talent that I saw on screen.  I was thinking back a lot to my experience watching Megalopolis the previous week.  Objectively, Megalopolis is a much sloppier, mismanaged movie than Folie a Deux, but it was also much more entertaining to watch.  Both movies are wild swings, but one of the movies misses and still manages to be memorable while the other misses and just makes you feel nothing.  There was little hope for Megalopolis, and yet I admire it’s audaciousness and the fact that it was just such a bizarre experience.  Joker: Folie a Deux wishes it could be bizarre.  Like I said before, there just seems to be this lack of committment to the bit from Todd Phillips.  He’s making a musical, but the musical numbers feel restrained to the point where they don’t soar, with Phillips still trying to tie it back into the grittiness of the original film.  And the fact that the movie never gives us anything more than a rundown of Joker’s criminal trial to center the story around also makes the movie feel small.  It’s barely a comic book movie adaptation, with a baffling absence of any hint of Batman. Lady Gaga is giving it her all in the belting out of her songs in the film, but her Harley Quinn has nothing else to offer and like everything else in the movie, she’s just there because she’s a piece of the Joker puzzle that ultimately never fully gets solved.  The must insulting part comes in the end, when Todd Phillips even appears to undermine the Joker origin that he set up in his original, beloved movie.  You leave the theater wondering what was the point in the end, and sadly there is none.  I get the feeling that Phillips was upset by just how many people misread the first film and he wanted to deconstruct the mythos that he himself had created as a means of getting the point across that he intended.  He wants us to see the way that fame and celebrity can corrupt, and that we as a society are embracing more and more people not for their good qualities but rather for their extreme personalities, and that can often lead to horrible consequences as villainous people can be elevated to heroes for the angry masses.  Unfortunately, too many people viewed the first film as a celebration of the extremes in society, and Folie a Deux feels too much like a not well thought out rebuttal to that misunderstood message of the first movie.  I imagine this is all we are going to get out of this brief else-world storyline from DC comics.  It’s not a good sign when you’re big musical comic book movie barely gets a reaction from even the most forgiving fans of the genre.  My screening was dead quiet by the end, and there were even walkouts before the credits rolled.  Joker will still live on in comics and on the big and little screen for years to come, but I doubt we’ll hear anymore singing from him for a while.

Rating: 5/10