I’m a big horror movie fan, but what I really like the best are the old classic horror movies, and then the ones from the 1960s. But my favorite movies of all are supernatural horror movies, especially ghost stories and black magic movies; but they have to be well done: so often they are either overdone claptrap, or they’re too dull and obtuse (Shades of Darkness, anyone?). To give you an idea of ghost movies I think are done right, there’s The Uninvited from 1944, and The Innocents from 1961. Then there’s also fun stuff like The Legend of Hell House, but it’s not quite as good as the earlier ones. There are a lot of other ghost movies that have potential, but many of them end up having the hauntings be faked to try to drive someone insane: That’s a lame copout, and ghost story fans will always be mad at that sort of thing. There are also a couple of movies from Mexico in the 1960s by a guy named Carlos Enrique Toboada, and they’re terrific! (No, really!) There are also some other good ones from the ‘70s and ‘80s, like The Changeling, The Haunting of Julia, and Ghost Story. And then there’s The Woman in Black.
Really, there are two Women in Black: there’s the BBC version, and then there’s this new movie version. The BBC version is really a great ghost story. It has no big budget or flashy special effects (actually, I think ghosts don’t require a lot of special effects, so much as a translucent ghost, an out-of-focus apparition, etc.), but it’s a wonderfully realized slow-burn ghost story, and it’s really one of the real champs! And then there’s this new version, from the renewed Hammer Films: it’s up there as well. I believe this version sacrificed story detail for jolts, but it’s also very well done. I was afraid they would ruin it with too many/too much flashy CGI effects ruining the reality of the scenario, but such is not the case. They really get the balance right with the visuals, I think. I actually prefer the sparser look of the BBC version, but it might have been too dull for the horror movie circuit. In any case, they didn’t ruin the story, they didn’t gore it up, and they didn’t throw in too many flashy special effects to ruin the story and fake it all up, like Poltergeist did. (Poltergeist is just a crappy special effects movie to me. It’s a great popcorn movie, but if it’s a ghost movie, I want it spooky! Plus, anything with Craig T. Nelson gets my “thumbs down”!)
If you look at viewer reviews of The Woman in Black, you’ll see it’s another one of those “love it or hate it” movies. That’s usually a good thing: if everyone loves it, it’s usually crap. (Like with music: Just look at the Grammys. I’ll admit Adele is talented, and the Foo Fighters are rockin’, but the rest of that stuff? Yeesh!) People who didn’t like it wanted more gore or torture porn (more of what they’re used to, that is), or they thought it was too slow and depressing (ghost stories usually are). I thought it was a bit too loud in the music, and too much dependent on the jump scare, rather than the icy cold chills, but it delivers both. It also doesn’t over-explain its story. I still don’t understand some things, and guess what that means? It means I’m still thinking about the movie! This means it has me in its grip even after it’s over: You can’t ask for much more than that from a movie. Some people say that if you get a song stuck humming in your head, it means it’s a great song. That’s not always true: it could also mean it’s really annoying. But when you’re still thinking about a movie, in a good way, for days after you’ve seen it, then that’s usually a good sign.
I grew up on Hammer movies, and this movie, for me, is the perfect Hammer comeback vehicle. (They made a few recent movies before this, but this is the best yet.) I love their classic horror movies, but they never really made a ghost movie, I don’t think. Well, if you’re going to make a ghost movie, you couldn’t pick a better one to do than The Woman in Black. It’s a great ghost story, tugging at so many human emotions, and making you think about human relationships: like, does mother love trump them all, etc.? And an interesting point not touched upon by either rendition is this: (Spoilers ahead!) The dead boy for whom the woman in black is taking her revenge out on everyone was her son, but when she tried to take him away with her he didn’t know that she was his mother! He had never known another mother than her sister, so it’s no wonder she can’t connect with him in the afterlife: He doesn’t know her as anything other than a kidnapper! And perhaps this is what makes her not be able to forgive: He died fighting her and fearing her, and it may even have been what killed him. (They died in a carriage accident, sinking into the mire. But we never find out why. I think it’s because he tried to escape, it fouled the horses, and they all went down into the morass. But I don’t know that. Actually, in the BBC production, the woman in black dies with her son, but in the new movie, she survives but hangs herself, and that’s even worse: but it's even better for a horror story!) Yet this issue is not really discussed in either production of this story. But do you know what? I thought of it, and I still think of it. And maybe everyone else does, too. And maybe we're meant to.
When mysteries are explained away, they lose their interest; that’s why a mystery movie is never quite as much fun the second time around: you already know what everything is building towards. But with a mystery that’s never quite all solved, it keeps you thinking about it, and it keeps it interesting. That’s why so much has been written over the years about what is perhaps one of Charles Dickens’s lamer stories: The Mystery of Edwin Drood; and that’s because since it was never finished, and the culprit never unmasked, it leaves everyone still wondering what the hell was supposed to happen. Never mind that it’s a sub-par Dickens tale: that doesn’t seem to matter much. The fact is, everyone is still wondering how it was intended to end, and that’s a lesson many others could learn from. But it helps to have a good foundation on which to build (like, for example, a writing reputation like Dickens’s, or a great ghost story like The Woman in Black.): if your story is lame, or your movie sucks, nobody will care about the open-ended quality, they’ll just be mad. But if it’s good, they’ll want more, and they’ll think about it in a tantalizing way. That’s why good mysteries shouldn’t always explain everything completely away: because then we won’t think about it; we’ll just be spoon-fed information, like in a Matlock episode.
But with this, this new movie version of The Woman in Black: we’ll have older people say it’s not as good as the BBC version, and we’ll have younger viewers say it’s better. But for me, they’re both great! And as they are pretty different, I’d say this new version is the perfect companion piece to the BBC production. I was lucky enough to get a DVD of the BBC version back before they disappeared. I read about it, and the reviewers said it’s one of the best ghost stories ever on film. I agree completely, and that’s why I really hope that this new movie, when it’s released on BluRay, will have this BBC production as a special feature on the disc, just so everyone can see them both. This is not an instance where they have to make sure the original remains obscure, since it’s better. It’s different, and it adds extra information for those who want to know more. But the new movie is great also, and all I’d say about it is that it contains some elements that are more contemporary than the TV version (like a loud musical score, and some very good special visual effects). And they are both very good, but they are both very different too. You’ll recognize the similarities immediately if you have seen the BBC one, but that just makes it more interesting; for rather than mucking it up, they simply have produced a version with a different intent: as a horror movie for theaters, rather than an understated TV movie for Masterpiece Theater. And as this BBC version is long out-of-print, and its quality almost legendary, making a remake for theaters seems to me the most intelligent thing imaginable for Hammer to have done. You see, it has a great reputation, and it’s very elusive, so it should pique a lot of curiosity for those who know about the story. And the kicker is, they hit it out of the park!
So Hammer Productions is back: great! I can’t wait for more from them, and I want them to succeed like no other company. The only problem is, and I’ve seen a few of their new movies now, that they are not sufficiently playing up the Hammer name! It’s just listed equally with a bunch of other production/distribution company names. Lame! It should be big and front and center: “A HAMMER FILM”! For those who know, the Hammer name is a big lure; and now, after they failed to ruin this great classic ghost story when most everyone else would have spoiled it, the Hammer name should win more and more converts. But not if they don’t see the name prominently displayed! I watched Wake Wood, and I didn’t even see the Hammer name in the credits at all! WTF? If they fail to put this name up in lights, so to speak, they are squandering one of the greatest names in horror ever! (Actually, one of the greatest names in movies: period.) Surely the other production companies can understand that, can’t they? It’s like putting the goose that laid the golden egg with a bunch of regular geese: nobody will know which one is magical! So show us it’s “A HAMMER FILM”: please! It could only help the bottom line! Because Hammer is horror Royalty! So play it up! Otherwise, it’s like Polo selling a shirt without a Polo logo on it: Where’s the selling point for the brand? (Or more to the point, it’s like making a Brad Pitt movie, but crediting him way at the back of the credits, and leaving his name out of the advertising, so nobody knows he’s even in it.) And when it comes to horror, there’s no bigger brand than Hammer! It should be prominently displayed with pride, like a Lacoste crocodile!
And do you know what? Hammer made this a success by the same formula that made them a success back in the day: They picked a previously produced story that was done well, and they put a new spin on it, making it more shocking and gruesome for the theatrical market. And, and this might be the most important part, they did it with a big name actor in the lead. Harry Potter's Daniel Radcliffe was great here, and I hope he does more for Hammer in the future! If they stick with this formula, they should have hit after hit after hit! How about remaking Ghost Story, or The Uninvited (the 1944 ghost movie), next? This team could really pull it off! I hope they do it! But whatever you do, if you like ghost stories, or spooky horror movies, rather than empty-headed slasher fare, then go see this movie!
