Video Home System. With the VHS, you had all the
entertainment of the multiplex and the ability to make your own life into a
home video. Compared to youtube, VHS was rubbish. But we of the ‘80s
generations love to fetishize archaic technology. A bunch of ‘80s-gen
filmmakers decided to make a horror movie out of their fetish. V/H/S.
V/H/S is structured as an anthology film. A group of
douchebags who make their money exposing unsuspecting women's tits on camera get
offered a big break. If they find a tape in an abandoned house, they’ll be paid
big. That’s the MacGuffin. Instead of one tape, they find an ambiguously dead
body and a bunch of tapes. So they watch them all, giving us a series of horror
shorts that are supposedly genuine recordings using the amazing system of home
video production, VHS. Nevermind that a few of the shorts are more likely to
have been recorded on MiniDV or directly to a computer’s hard disk.
Judging by the talent involved—Adam Wingard, Ti West, e.g.—I
imagine they saw the opportunity to make something avant-garde here. To push
the boundaries of horror by playing with the medium, introducing new levels of
creativity to the increasingly stagnant but promising found-footage genre. Playing with ideas
like recording-over existing footage and having the old footage show through,
as often happened with that wily magnetic tape. Or entities that are either uncapturable by magnetic tape or, perhaps, entirely an artifact of magnetic tape.
I agree: they had the opportunity to make something
avant-garde, a bold step into new areas of horror filmmaking. If they think
they achieved that, then I disagree. They had many good ideas and they
chose to show those ideas before developing them.
This is particularly true of the frame, the third, and the
fifth segments. The third, directed by Glen McQuaid, creates an interesting
technique in which a murderer becomes a series of magnetic tape artefacts, as
if phasing in an out of reality—but a video, rather than physical, reality. The
technique looks great and compelling. I wonder, ‘What the hell is this thing?
Is it in the camera? In the world? How does it work?’ The implementation of the
technique is sadly wasted on a glib slasher story that offers no explanation.
The story is merely a showcase of the technique.
The fifth segment, directed by the group Radio Silence,
introduces some brilliant, cocteauian flourishes of ghostly hands reaching
through solid matter. The digital effects are seamlessly integrated into the
camcorder footage. The idea is good. I just wish there was more of it, either
in depth of detail or variety of effects. I also would have preferred a less
trite conclusion to an otherwise interesting story.
The frame tale, by Adam Wingard, is the most devoted to
struggling with the medium of a VHS tape. In a film titled ‘V/H/S,’ that’s a
good thing. But old footage showing through is a well-known technique called
‘palimpsest’ in literature. It’s been exploited at least as early as Hoffman’s
The Life and Opinions of Tomcat Murr. The technique is nothing new and so
demands a vivid and original application. With Wingard, the technique merely hangs
there, a suggestion to future filmmakers, ‘Wouldn’t this be a good idea?’
The experimental techniques attempted by V/H/S are
interesting and do suggest some new directions for horror filmmaking. The
problem is that they’re only suggesting rather than pioneering. If a filmmaker
is going to just suggest, he’s placing himself alongside experimental
filmmakers who are doing the same thing, but much better. Peter Tscherkassky’s
“Outer Space” and “Dream Work,” for instance. Martin Arnold’s “Deanimated: The
Invisible Ghost,” in which the Bela Lugosi film The Invisible Ghost is
gradually stripped of all actors. The Maya Deren films that inspired David
Lynch. The Stan Brakhage films that inspired Fincher’s cinematic textures. What
V/H/S needed is more time in development to give these bones some real flesh.
Besides the conceit of being genuine VHS recordings, each
story is linked by another motif. Starting with the frame narrative, all the
stories focus on the exploitative nature of relationships between men and women.
This motif is given a variety of interpretations, but it remains constant. In
the frame tale, for instance, the men grab a woman in a car park and expose her
while yelling, “Show her tits!” This is taped over one of the men trying to
secretly videotape sex with a girl and getting caught.
The first story, written and directed by David Bruckner, is
the most rigorous on the motif. A strange pickup from a nightclub is pressed
into a gangbang by a group of men with a secret spy cam. The evening ends in a
frightening, gory mess. Bruckner’s simple, controlled, highly effective short,
albeit mostly predictable, is the best V/H/S gets.
The second story, from Ti West, concerns a roadtrip with a
shy mistress that ends in lesbianic murder. West provides the weakest segment
in V/H/S, with a banal story that could have been at the back of an Ellery
Queen pulp fifty years ago. The story provides a single, startling moment, like
a good punchline, then continues spiralling senselessly toward its
uninteresting conclusion. West is the master of the uninteresting, as in his
recent films, House of the Devil and The Innkeepers. Perhaps someone should let
him know Antonioni’s dead.
In the fourth story, by Joe Swanberg, a man videochats with
his long-distance girlfriend and talks her through some unsettling events in
her apartment. His frustrating bumbling proves to be part of a sinister
conspiracy. Swanberg’s segment, albeit the most detached from the idea of VHS,
is one of the best. The imagery is creepy and the conclusion disturbing. Also,
the girl has beautiful breasts.
The third and fifth stories service the motif. The slasher
plot of the third involves the usual horny guys and slutty girls. One of the
girls, however, is merely using the others as bait. The fifth concerns a group
of young party-goers discovering a woman bound and in duress. Their ethical
decisions get them surprisingly little gratitude.
2 comments:
Sorry for bombarding you this morning. I have to agree and disagree with you on Ti West. I actually like his films (the few I've seen) for what you rightfully call uninteresting. Most of his resolutions are rather... realistic, in that they don't seem cinematic, or even like a writer has taken a creative liberty with it, but rather that it really played out like that. His movies remind me of the how the actual events in my life, but when retold, have added details for the sake of story, while in the back of my mind, I know the order of events were changed for added effect, or it didn't quite happen that way at all. He's the uninteresting storyteller that many do not want to listen to, because while his stories are more factual and chronological, they have misplaced climaxes and the whole of the story reads more like an extended epilogue.
I can certainly see that, yeah. I actually find myself enjoying the banal aspects of Ti West's films most. I like all the 'build-up' in House of the Devil, the long stretches of inconsequential banter in The Innkeepers. He is a master at the uninteresting. Their pseudo-interesting climaxes are what I don't care for.
Post a Comment