I gave Robert Wise's The Haunting a second chance. (1 Viewer)

[Dome Vongvises]

Rex Bachman said:

It's pretty hard to tell someone else when (t)he(y) should feel "primal dread", but let me suggest to you that, if the prospect of being a conscious, disembodied entity trapped for all eternity in a dismal, shunned locale, set apart and unable to communicate with others, doesn't do it for you, probably nothing ever will. ("We who dwell [or "walk"?] [t]here, dwell ["walk"?] alone.") "Primal dread", whatever it is, is not first and foremost about fear of physical harm alone. (That's usually called "terror", and it is short-lived.) "Dread" is something lingering, but subtle; something hard to put your finger on. It is something existential. You just know it's there; always

I think I was using a bad choice of words, such as primal fear. I was basically trying to seperate fear of what we don't know or understand from the fear of physical harm being done to onesself. If you'll allow me to start from the beginning, I was trying to make the point that once I was able to rationale the "bangings" and "wailing of voices" as there being no threat of physical harm coming to me (or to the characters in the film), I found it very hard to be frightened or terrified at all. So I could not at all participate in the fear that the characters felt. When was I confronted with the "expanding" door (something I couldn't even begin to rationalize) only then was I able to share in the terror.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Dome, I must agree with Seth and point out that you have at least laid out your reasons for not liking this horror masterpiece. You haven't called it a "bad movie" or used the typical line one reads here at HTF during the summers--i.e., "I hated it, it sucked!" JB

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Jack Briggs said:

Dome, I must agree with Seth and point out that you have at least laid out your reasons for not liking this horror masterpiece. You haven't called it a "bad movie" or used the typical line one reads here at HTF during the summers--i.e., "I hated it, it sucked!" JB

I've got to grow up at some point in my life.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Agee Bassette wrote:

No, I don't think I am. You don't like the script. You don't like Mr. Wise's direction (apparently, in general). You don't like the acting.
I get it! I get it!
My problem is that I think your complaints lie mostly at the script level. The level of the "script" is the place where, as you put it, the "clumsy translation" from the literary source occurs, and neither Mr. Wise nor the actors, as far as I know, had anything to do with writing the script. The staging is mostly dictated by the script! The script!
We'll have to leave it at the point that I (and some others) find this film as effective a chiller as one is likely to get out of such material transposed to film. I've found it rare, indeed, to ever be truly frightened by any "ghost story".

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Dome Vongvises wrote:

Quote:

You're saying, then, that the canny ("the familiar") does not frighten, while the uncanny does. I see your point, but I think the distinction is artificial, since fear is never rational (any more than is love or hope or faith). Fear is always motivated underlyingly (or ultimately) by harm avoidance (whether that harm be physical or metaphysical). It is an inherent (genetically programmed) characteristic of all mortal beings, as far as I can tell,---they all shrink from harm, if they can "move" at all---and will always be present as long as the possibility of decease of being exists.
My question to you is, if you find a phenomenon from an unknown and (presumably) disembodied source, how do you know that no harm attends it? By this, I mean, though the phenomenon itself may seem harmless for the moment, it is nevertheless a symptom, so to speak, with a still uncanny underlying cause. What do you do, especially if you find yourself in weird, possibly hostile, surroundings (a la Hill House)?
We fear the unknown, not just because it's unknown, but because it might harm, might bring about that decease to our existence. So, we investigate (as do the protagonists of The Haunting).

 

[Rex Bachmann]

RobertR wrote:

Much like the novel, about which some commentators have remarked on the inherent ambiguity of how it was written. It has also been said that---and this combines both the psychological and the "psychic"---the goings-on at Hill House during the story are actually psychic manifestations of Eleanor's inner psychological turmoil. The "ghosts" are, under such an interpretation, reduced to some psychic force generated by the protagonist's disturbed mind (of which Hill House is the outward physical representation).

Perhaps, that is the scenario the makers of this film strove to present.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Rex Bachmann said and asked:

What do you do, especially if you find yourself in weird, possibly hostile, surroundings (a la Hill House)?

Good questions.
For the first question, I can't necessarily provide the best answer nor can I provide the best possible explanation I'm aiming for but here goes. The only way you can tell if a any or no harm is coming from said source is to formulate conclusions from thoughts based upon any observations you've made about the source. For example, if the said source is producing audible intrusions and visual abhorrences, then the initial reaction is naturally one of fear (e.g. pissing your pants, hairs standing on your neck). Then one must form thoughts about what the source is actually trying to do. If it's trying to do harm by physical means (drop pianos on you, kill you by lacerations, etc. etc.) or by mental means (drive you crazy with whispering thoughts), then yes, you do know that the said source is harming you. But once you rationalize that the said source is not harming you (by it's continued use of only moaning and wailing throughout the night), then fear immediately disappears from the picture.
As to answer your second question, it has to be done in two parts. Finding myself in a weird place such as Hill House, I'll naturally be frigthened. Now, to consider whether or not something is hostile, you have to again make some observations about it and formulate a conclusions.
I'm terribly sorry, but I'm really bad with hitting road blocks with my thought processes. I guess I'm weird in a certain way that I make certain progressions with my fear.
There's the initial reaction/instinct I guess that is inbred into living beings (with or without any thought what so ever) to be fearful of things we can't comprehend. But once I apply some thought to what is initially scaring me, I then can make the progression to whether or not I want to remain frightened or if fear dissipates itself from me.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Sorry, this was meant as a semi-rhetorical question to get you thinking, not as a test, or anything.
I believe still that much of what you say is highly "rationalized" and idealized. When one finds oneself in an unfamiliar environment which one does not control, it will be a whole lot harder to take these ideal, "scientific" steps you're talking about than to get the heck out of there for fear of real danger. In The Haunting the exploration is undertaken and continued, obviously, because they don't believe, until too late, that there is any real danger. "Foolish mortals!"

 

[Kevin M]

The use of of the color Orange in quotes hurts my Glazzballs real horrorshow!
..I'm sorry that I don't have anything more constructive to say on the subject, it's just that it has been at least ten years since I have seen Wise's The Haunting and it doesn't look like I will again very soon (on DVD at least, perhaps AMC or TCM will show it this Halloween).
I did buy Wise's Audrey Rose(1977) on DVD recently & I find that to be about as creepy as you can get. Hopefully The Haunting will make it's DVD debut soon.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Kevin,
Turner Classic Movies shows "The Haunting" every couple of months and will show the LBX presentation of it on 9/10/02 @ 6:00 p.m. ET.




Crawdaddy

 

[Kevin M]

Excellent! Thank you Peter.

 

[Agee Bassett]

This brings up the whole debate about how much responsibility is apportioned to the director or screenwriter for the success/failure of an adaptation. Sorry, I don’t buy that the director is exempt (especially not when he also happens to be the film’s producer). As the one in charge of what the cameras see and record, to him falls the responsibility of making sure that his material translates into visual and cinematic terms. Certainly as a former editor, Mr. Wise should not have been ignorant of the importance of this factor.
For the record, I’m a big admirer of Wise’s early work. But like many directors who were forced to adapt to the wide screen and a new filmmaking climate in mid-career, his fluent grasp of the medium gradually slipped. His later work can be generously characterized as “elephantine.”
Furthermore, Russ Tamblyn excepted (not one of his era’s more sympathetic “teen twerps” ), I lay nothing but respect at the feet of the actors for this film (particularly Harris). It is not their fault they were stranded without an equally deft hand staging the proceedings.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Like I said, many times before, name me a film that works for every viewer? You can't because such an animal doesn't exist and it never will.



Crawdaddy

 

[Paul McElligott]

The other thing I thought was plain silly was the lesbian undertone to the relationship between Theodora and Eleanor. What good does that serve the narrative?

The lesbian undertone was present in the original novel, although much more subtle (mostly because you could be more subtle in writing).


I think the purpose of Theo's lesbian tendencies was to cast doubt on her character's motivations. Was she genuinely concerned for Eleanor or was she trying to lead her "astray?"

 

[teapot2001]

Like I said, many times before, name me a film that works for every viewer?

The Iron Giant?

~T

 

[Robert Crawford]

Didn't care for it, try again.



Crawdaddy

 

[teapot2001]

Robert, I think you need to start a new thread titled, "I gave Brad Bird's The Iron Giant a second chance." In it, you post your realization that it is a good movie.
~T

 

[Johnny Angell]

I was doing a search for the TV series Second Chance and this was one of the results. An ancient thread but it's a favorite movie so I'll just throw in my two bits.

So Dome, don't mince words, how do you really feel about Eleanore? Just kidding. Even though I really love this movie, I do get how she could be like fingernails on a chalkboard to others.

Been a while since I watched it, will have to do that soon. It has always been my impression that the viewer was supposed to walk out of the theater wondering "where there really ghosts or was Eleanore just crazy?" I don't think the movie answers that. Also the movie is way too early for cgi. I believe the bulging door was a practical effect.

This is my favorite ghost film even though we see no ghosts and are left wondering if there were ghosts.

 

[trevanian]

Stephen King made an interesting point about Wise's film in his book on the horror genre called DANSE MACABRE, saying there is supposed to be a moment in a horror film when you get to see what is behind the door -- and Wise's film refuses to show that, so ultimately it comes off as a bit of a cheat. I'm kind of torn on the issue, because I think they would have come up short on the visual, so it was probably a correct call, but that King's observation is a sound one. For as much as SK dislikes Kubrick's version of THE SHINING, he kind of does it both ways there, with that incredible decision to DISSOLVE when Jack approaches room 217/237 ... you don't get to see what is going on till much later, but you do start seeing things then and it is just enough between visuals and music to deliver what is necessary (except that he doesn't let the boiler room blowup, that's my complaint with the film, that and Ms Duvall's character, but that's another thread.)

 

[Johnny Angell]

Stephen King made an interesting point about Wise's film in his book on the horror genre called DANSE MACABRE, saying there is supposed to be a moment in a horror film when you get to see what is behind the door -- and Wise's film refuses to show that, so ultimately it comes off as a bit of a cheat. I'm kind of torn on the issue, because I think they would have come up short on the visual, so it was probably a correct call, but that King's observation is a sound one. For as much as SK dislikes Kubrick's version of THE SHINING, he kind of does it both ways there, with that incredible decision to DISSOLVE when Jack approaches room 217/237 ... you don't get to see what is going on till much later, but you do start seeing things then and it is just enough between visuals and music to deliver what is necessary (except that he doesn't let the boiler room blowup, that's my complaint with the film, that and Ms Duvall's character, but that's another thread.)

I'll have to disagree with King on the requirement to show what's behind the door. I'm reminded of It Came from Outer Space. The commentary and the making of doc both make a big deal of the fact that Ray Bradbury did not what the creature to be shown, he wanted it left up to the imagination. The studio insisted on a creature and that's why there is one. The creature that was in the film is not the inspired and really reveals the SFX limitations of the times.

I can't imagine The Haunting being better with visible ghosts. The remake had al sorts of CGI ghosts and I thought it Stank, IMHO. There have been effective and visible ghosts like Poltergeist and Ghost. The Ghost and Mrs Muir has a ghost visible thru most of the film but that ghost is not there to terrify the viewer.

Yeah, I know, who am I to disagree with SK.