“Don’t show them too much--the audience can imagine far greater horrors than we can ever show them."
       --Boris Karloff

In its quest to remake anything that made money in the past, Hollywood decided to give The Haunting another go recently.  It was really "no go," as we see in...

By NATHAN WATSON

(Note:  We are happy to introduce another new "ghost" writer to HORROR-WOOD.  Nathan Watson tells us he first entered the world's stage in October of 1973. Perhaps his birth so close to All Hallow's Eve made it inevitable that he would develop a liking for all the ghoulies, ghasties and things that go bump in the night. Perhaps to hammer home the point, he spent five straight Halloweens in a vampire costume. Now, ostensibly an adult, he does as much writing as he can, splitting time between self-bios and screenplays. Still, he hopes, like Pinocchio and Tom Lehrer before him, to one day become a real boy!)

This past summer, Director Jan De Bont’s updated version of Robert Wise’s classic ghost film, The Haunting, opened to wide panning by the critics. Although the initial box office was strong, ticket sales fell quickly as audiences spread the word on this truly bad movie.

Many contemporary filmgoers probably had no idea how inept the new film is as most probably have not seen the classic original. To truly appreciate the weakness of the film, a comparison to Wise’s classic is in order.

The basic premise of the original 1963 film is as follows: a psychic researcher is aware of the troubled history of Hill House and believes it may be haunted. He invites other persons whose past indicates a high awareness of paranormal events. The premise of the 1999 film alters this considerably: a psychologist wishes to do a study on the effects of fear. He masquerades it as an insomnia study to prevent the subjects from knowing that their responses to fear are to be tested. He has no belief that the house may be haunted; he just feels it is suitably spooky to prompt fear responses.

This alteration causes problems immediately. Presumably, it was changed to seem more “believable” to modern audiences, but anyone who knows anything about psychology and ethics knows that this type of study would never take place. “Maze Rat” studies of this sort disappeared at least 40 years ago. Any psychologist that would do one of these studies risks losing his license. More unbelievably, the researcher, Dr. Morrow, is granted permission to do this study by the university he (presumably) works for. He needs their funding, but any university stupid enough to fund this study would lose all the grants and funding they receive because the study goes against all the current ethics of psychology.

The characters and their relationships are also altered, and none of them for the better. Dr. John Markway (Richard Johnson) becomes Dr. David Morrow (Liam Neeson), a somewhat incompetent psychologist. Markway has a wife that figures prominently in the original film; Morrow appears to be unattached. Theodora (Claire Bloom) becomes Theo (Catherine Zeta Jones). Luke (Russ Tamblyn) goes from a kind sidekick to a somewhat annoying Luke (Owen Wilson). Eleanor is the most interesting character in both filmic versions. In both films, she has led a life stifled by taking care of her invalid and demanding mother. Wise’s version has Eleanor (Julie Harris) as a tragic character. She is clearly not used to being around people, yet yearns for something different--an adventure, anything tangible so that she can know what it is to live. She also has a rather bizarre poltergeist-like experience in her past.

In the 1999 film, Eleanor (Lili Taylor) retains some of these qualities. Her character makes the best transition between the films, yet this new Eleanor has an inner strength that Harris never displays. No doubt the changes in the story bring this about. It doesn’t work, though, because the changes in the story don’t work. 

De Bont’s film has Theo proclaim herself bisexual. Wise’s film never explicitly states it, but indicates that Theo is a lesbian. This is relevant primarily in the relationships weaved between Theo and Eleanor and Dr. Markway. In the original, there is a clear and obvious attraction between Nell and Dr. Markway. She has no idea how to act on it and he holds back, because of his marriage. There is also an attraction between Eleanor and Theo. Eleanor certainly has no idea how to act on this or even if she wants to--she even calls Theo a “monster” at one point. The attraction between Markway and Nell hits a critical point when his wife shows up. It is the spark that sets off the conclusion.

In the new film, none of this happens or is relevant. There seems to be no particular attraction between Eleanor and Marrow, who doesn’t even have a wife in this version. Yes, she smiles at him a lot, but it comes across as more like nervous friendliness than any type of interest. Between Theo and Nell, we have one brief scene where Nell checks out Theo’s cleavage to indicate her passing interest. If romantic interest was intended between any of these three characters, it does not come across on the screen. None of this has any relevance to what transpires in the remainder of the film. The direction of many scenes in the newer film is absolutely flat. Comparison of a few sequences will illustrate this point nicely.

In the Wise version, there is an excellent scene where Nell is hearing those awful noises again. We are shown nothing but darkness. Nell talks to Theo and takes her hand for comfort. When the noises pass and the lights go up, we see that Nell is laying across the room for Theo and couldn’t possibly have been holding her hand. It is a jarring and chilling moment. We have seen absolutely nothing horrible and yet we are faced with the knowledge that she was holding the hand of....something. This horror of the unseen is almost unspeakable and we can readily share in Nell’s terror. In the new version, Nell rolls out of bed and says “Who was holding my hand?”. It may sound like a joke, but it is not. The scene is truly that bad. There is no build-up whatsoever and the line is completely unnecessary. Why bother with it other than to show how inept this film is?

Another scene that comes across as somewhat silly is the staircase one. In this, the good doctor must climb a rickety staircase to get to Nell, who seems to have gone a bit mad. This is one instance where the problem may have been in the script as the scene is shot well enough. The problem is that we have no history with the staircase in the De Bont film, so it comes across as a cheap thrill. In the original, the staircase was featured prominently earlier in the film and had been established as rickety when Luke began to climb it and had to jump off because it was so near collapsing. In the DeBont film, without the earlier scenes, it all seems rather silly and desperate. It’s as though the producers said “Hey! There’s a staircase! Let’s make it perilous." Without seeing the original, the modern viewer is forced to this conclusion.

The ultimate disappointment in this film, though, is the possibility of it. In the original, Nell is somewhat unhinged mentally. She has also been established as possibly causing poltergeist-like happenings as a child. There is the possibility that all the events that transpire in the film are caused by her. With the exception of Theo, no other character experiences the supernatural events. It remains possible that all that occurs is not supernatural. In the new film, no such ambiguity remains. This house is clearly haunted.

The ending of the new version is also ridiculous. In effect, Nell un-haunts Hill House. In the original, the house at the end of the film is the same as the beginning of the film. No change, just another victim. In the new one, we are saddled with closure--an unnecessary and dramatically weak burden. Another minor point is that Dr. Marrow and Theo will likely be charged with murder for the death of Luke and the disappearance of Eleanor.

The original avoided such complications by having only one death--Nell’s--in what the authorities could call a clear accident.

The only plus of the new film was the beautiful house and nice special effects. That said, the film would have been far creepier without all the ghosts wandering about. Another illustration of Boris Karloff’s maxim: “Don’t show them too much--the audience can imagine far greater horrors than we can ever show them."

Thanks, Nathan, for pointing out that even an old "haunt" can wear out its welcome.  If you'd like to read a deep analysis of the original film, check out Karin Wikoff's earlier article here.  Cheers! 

Article copyright Nathan Watson

Return To Arcives From The Crypt