The Dark Half (1993)

Title: The Dark Half (1993)

Director: George Romero

Writer: George Romero (based on the novel by Stephen King)

Cast: Timothy Hutton, Amy Madigan, Michael Rooker

Review:

So The Dark Half is one of those George Romero movies that doesn’t get talked about much. Like Monkey Shines (1988) and Martin (1977), The Dark Half tends to get overshadowed (as most Romero films that don’t deal with zombies do) by Romero’s living dead films. But in all honesty, I think this movie deserves a whole lot more attention then it gets, simply because it’s not a film one can easily lump amongst Romero’s bad films, like Bruiser (2000) or Season of the Witch (1972) for example.

Hey, Thad just so happens to be giving a class on the films theme! What a coincidense!

The Dark Half tells the tale of Thad Beaumont, a writer who has been working under the pseudonym George Stark so that he can sell books and make a living. You see, he writes trashy violence filled novels under this name so that his real name isn’t tarnished. Kind of like the same way that Stephen King would write under the name Richard Bachman, but more on that later. So anyhow, Thad decides to kill off his pseudonym and tell the world that George Star and Thad Beaumont are one and the same. Problem is, when he does this, George Stark, basically Thad’s alter ego comes alive and starts killing off people. Everyone thinks that it’s Thad doing the killing, when in fact it is his alter ego/persona George Stark. Will Thad be able to stop Stark? Will he ever confront his dark side and win?

This film marks one of many collaborations between Stephen King and George Romero. Their first collaboration was Creepshow (1982). They worked together yet again on Creepshow 2 (1987). The Dark Half is an interesting picture because it mixes the best of both of these brilliant horror oriented masterminds. On The Dark Half, we get a lot of the themes that we can come to expect from a Stephen King novel/film. If you notice, a lot of Stephen King stories revolve around the life of a writer, in this way, King mirrors his own life in his work. Misery, Desperation and even IT all have writers in them. And in many of these stories, the writer is always confronted with the fear of someone hounding him, like in Misery (1990) for example where the writer is assaulted and kidnapped by one of his own rabid fans, forcing him to write the story she wants to see.

The film was based on the Stephen King novel of the same name

On The Dark Half, Thad Beaumont is the writer. And he writes these violent novels by using the pseudonym George Starks. In a way, Thad uses Stark and these violent novels in a cathartic manner, exorcising his inner demons, his dark violent side. The film explains we all have this dark side, the side we don’t show to everybody. Thad is also a university teacher, and on his classes he explains that a writer needs to let their super-ego, the dark secret self out when they write. A writer’s job is to set this inner persona loose and let it go wild and free. And of course this is all true. A writer does need to let go of inhibitions when he or she writes. On The Dark Half, this secret persona becomes real when Thad decides to eliminate him. So suddenly we are in a story where Thad has an evil version of himself doing all sorts of twisted and perverted deeds. Problem is, all these evil deeds are blamed on Thad.

George Stark's one evil S.O.B!

I actually enjoy it when he does something other then zombie films. I’m a fan of Monkey Shines, I love Martin. And I love The Dark Half. It stars Timothy Hutton as Thad Beaumont, and it’s a good Timothy Hutton performance. He plays a double role, the good side of Thad and his dark half, George Stark. It is said that Timothy Hutton was not easy to work with during this production, that he and George had differences. Hutton even quit the film for a few days during the middle of the film! But whatever, I say that this all translated rather well on film. Hutton seems intense and evil when he is playing Stark, who by the way has a little bit of Elvis Presley in him as well. He constantly hums Elvis’s “Are You Lonesome Tonight?” all through out the film, another sign that Stephen King is mirroring himself with this story. Stephen Kings affection for the King is well known. By the way, King himself says that this story is semi-autobiographical because it has to do with a story that forced him to reveal his Richard Bachman pseudonym to the world. When King wrote under the Bachman pseudonym, his novels were darker and violent, and that’s because no one knew he was Bachman as well. As a writer, he would go nuts! Until he was forced to come out to the world and say the truth: that King and Bachman were the same guy. After that, he wrote The Dark Half. I will say this about The Dark Half, it has more King then Romero in it that’s for sure. So maybe that’s what some critics mean when they say this isn’t so much a Romero film.

The film was plagued with production woes. Aside from the differences between Romero and Hutton, Orion Pictures was going bankrupt, and so the film was stuck in limbo for well over two years after completion. It didn’t really make its money back at the box office, making only 10 million vs. its 15 million budget. But I’m sure the films failure at the box office had more to do with the way it was marketed, then the film itself. I recently saw it and didn’t find many faults in it. I mean, the only negative side to the whole thing is how to explain George Stark manifesting himself in the real world. I mean, okay, Thad Beaumont had an unborn twin brother lodged inside his brain when he was a kid, but it was surgically removed. My only question for King and Romero is how do they explain a fictional character manifesting in the real world like that? How did George Stark come to be? I mean, Stark was simply a pseudonym, a name. That’s all. Stark was really Thad all along. Is Stark some sort of dark spirit? What exactly is Stark? It is never explained. But I let that go because within the fantasy of the film it works. I mean, I get the symbolisms and what the story is trying to say; it’s just that when it comes down to logic, there really isn’t any there. That’s about as negative as I can get about this movie.

Nightmares can be a bitch in a George Romero film!

This is not really a whodunit, because pretty early on we know its not Stark doing the killing, we know about Thad’s dark side pretty early on. If anything, some might think that it isn’t that fun learning the films “twist” so early in the film, but that’s just fine with me. The Dark Half isn’t a Shyamalan film, wanting to wow you with a twist ending. Romero isn’t concerned with that. This film isn’t even a gore fest like many of Romero’s zombie films, the blood letting and gore on this film is suggested and happens off-screen most of the time. No my friends, The Dark Half is more of a psychological film, a symbolic film. It asks us to deal with our dark side, confront it, and eliminate it if need be. It’s interesting that Thad decides to do this so he can protect his family from harm, in this way, revealing to us its ultimate message.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Memorable Horror Movie Posters

I love horror posters that display genuine artistry, thats why I'm dedicating todays batch of posters to some horror posters that I find that have good art in them. Searching for these posters made me wonder what happened to poster art? Now every single poster is made in a computer, what happened to the good old days when posters use to have actual artwork in them? The posters on this blog post dont necesarilly come from the greatest horror movies ever. As is the case with a lot of films, the posters are sometimes better then the movie they represent. What attracts me to these posters is the artwork involved, the craftmanship. Not the film. Not the photoshop. The art. Anyhows, hope you guys enjoy them!

The Others (2001)

Title: The Others (2001)

Writer/Director: Alejandro Amenabar

Cast: Nicole Kidman

Review:

Famed movie reviewer Roger Ebert said that with The Others, director Alejandro Amenabar was “a little too confident that style can substitute for substance”. This is a comment that I completely disagree with because The Others is a film that is all about substance. It’s not just a great ghost story (which it is) it is a whole lot more than that. It has a depth, and a bravura that shines through in only the best of horror movies. Yes it is an extremely stylish and atmospheric film, but the film also has something more in mind than spooking you. And that’s exactly what I love about it, how it manages to both be relevant with its themes, and be a great ghost story at the same time.

Ebert’s take on the film is that it was boring. That it took its damn good time in building up suspense, but eventually took too long to deliver the thrills. Again, a comment I disagree with entirely. Not all haunted house movies have to be as flashy and special effects driven as say, the Poltergeist Trilogy. Some of the most effective ghost films are those that are subtle slow burners, taking their good time to crawl under your skin. Films like The Changeling (1980) and Ghost Story (1981) are this way. Their emphasis is on atmosphere, convincing performances and telling a spooky story. Not wowing you with visual effects.

And that is exactly the kind of film that The Others is. Alejandro Amenabar, the Spanish director behind such excellent films as Thesis (1996), The Sea Inside (2004) and Open Your Eyes (1997) orchestrates a film that is purposely quiet and filled with whispers. A film filled with darkness and shadows, a potent combination for a horror film. As Nichole Kidman’s character says at one point “we cherish our silence in this household” and to be honest I think that suits this film perfectly well. In a horror film, silence and shadows are an essential tool with which to spook your audience with because the imagination can fill the gap with something usually more terrible then what we actually see or hear. In its most tense moments, silence is king on this film, until an otherworldly thud or boom squeezes in, then you are scared and the movie has you by the throat! Characters speak in whispers, almost as if telling us a secret. This was Amenabar’s way of setting the dark fairytale mood the film has to it. The Others feels as if someone was reading us a ghost story in the middle of the night. The characters talk in low whispers, as if purposely begging us to pay closer attention to what they are saying. I love that about this movie. From its very first moments the film sets its mood by asking us in a whisper: “Are you sitting comfortably? Good, then I’ll begin…”

Atmosphere reigns supreme on The Others!

But apart from these stylish choices, the film has a depth to it. And if you haven’t seen the movie, then maybe you wont want to read the following paragraphs, because I’m going to go in depth as to what the movie was about. What works great for The Others is the fact that the films themes fit perfectly within the context of a ghost story. You see, at its core, the film is is about beliefs. What do we believe will happen after we die? Do we turn into ghosts? Do we go to heaven or to hell? Or do we simply die and rot away? What exactly are we taught about these things when we are children? And are any of these teachings true? Should we believe what ever belief system is shoved down our throats when we are still children? The movie presents us with Grace (Nichole Kidman) a lonely mother who lives in this huge dark mansion with her two children who suffer from a skin decease called Xeroderma Pigmentosum, a decease that makes them sensitive to sunlight. The children need to live in darkness all the time, all the doors in the household must remain close and the curtains have to be close, to prevent the children from being harmed by the sunlight. While in that darkness and in the midst of the candlelight the mother teaches the kids about the bible, about faith, and about what they should believe in.

"So then this guy put all the animals in the world in one boat..."

That was a key sequence for me. The mother and her children, in the darkness, reading from the bible. I’ll get to the symbolisms on that one later. In one scene, The Mother who’s name is ‘Grace’ asks her children to imagine what she is teaching them, to imagine there is a big bearded guy up there in heaven watching over their every move. This is one of the many tools that religion requires of its parishioners: imagination. Since you cant visually confirm anything that they are telling you, they ask you to imagine all these fantastical things and make them true in your mind. Yet interestingly enough, the children in this film don’t believe everything they are taught. At one point they say “I don’t believe the holy ghost is a dove. Doves are anything but holy, they poo on the windows” They also say they don’t believe that Noah put all the animals in the world in one boat. Smart kids! I like how the film presents us with the idea of these two children using their reasoning skills to realize that some of these stories in the bible are simply too far fetched to be believed, too fantastic to be real. These kids represents the new generation, questioning the old beliefs, the old myths, the old beliefs. It’s almost as if they were saying “do you actually expect us to believe these things?”

The film compares Christian beliefs with darkness and ignorance. The children are being over protected by her religious mother, who is afraid to let them go out into the world, afraid that they might be exposed to the light. The light in this film represens illumination, enlightenment, exposure to the truth. In the film, Grace keeps her children deliberately in the dark because she believes that “the light will kill them!” The film presents us with the idea that some people believe exposing the real truth about belief systems on society can be a dangerous thing. The idea that if you were to suddenly tell Christians that Christianity is just one big giant fairy tale, that humanity wont be able to take it. That this might generate one big gigantic chaos in society. That the light might kill them, as the movie puts it.

The ultimate truth in the film is accepting that we die. The ghosts in the film don’t want to accept that they are dead. In one awesome scene the ghosts shout “we are not dead! We are not dead!” The ultimate illumination in our lives, the light that can be too harsh to look at, is accepting our own mortality. Maybe we don’t turn to ghosts when we die. Maybe there is no heaven and no hell, when we die, who knows what happens. Is the idea that we simply die too horrible to accept that we have to make up fairy tales to make us feel better? Can we not simply accept that we have to make the best of this life because this life is probably the only one we are going to get? Shall we live in the darkness of ignorance and misinformation, or shall we live in the light and illumination of truth, however harshly that light might shine at first? Won’t our consciousness adjust to the light of truth?

In the film, finally, the light shines, and the kids don’t die. Their bodies had recuperated from their decease and they took in the light and accepted the fact that they were dead. Mrs. Mills, the cleaning lady that moves in to assist Grace and her children, says to the children “your mother only believes in what she was taught. But don’t worry…sooner or later, she will see them (the humans). And everything will be alright”. On this scene the film is telling us how Grace is stuck in an old fashion way of thinking that doesn’t subscribe to the truth. A very symbolic visual queue is that Grace is living in a constant fog not knowing where she is or where she is going. In one scene she walks out of her house and gets lost in the myst. The myst symbolizing her confusion and her shortness of vision. She only sees things her way, and doesn’t see further then that, beyond the fog and into the light. Mrs. Mills tells the children: “You’ll see. There are going to be some big surprises. There are going to be…changes” I loved that line of dialog because I personally, I truly hope that societies dependency on religion will one day disappear. That one day we will live our lives knowing that we are the makers of our own destiny, that its up to us to make things right. That we have to make the most of this life, because when we die, that’s probably as far as we will go. Ultimately, I see why some people choose to believe in the bible and its ideas of the afterlife. After all, the idea of an afterlife is a comforting one. But is it the truth? How can we know it is?

Grace's light shines a little too dimly

The Others is the kind of horror film that speaks up against religion and uses the context of a ghost story to do it. It wants to tell its audience, open those curtains and let the light in! Illuminate your way of seeing things. Don’t be afraid to confront the truth! And I applaud it for that. It seems that director Alejandro Amenabar’s mission in life is to scream this to the world, his latest film Agora (2010) plays once again with the themes of religion vs. science. It presents us with a world where the new religion (Christianity) is rising up and going up against the old Greek Myths. A nation in clash over beliefs. This world is filled with many unanswerable questions. My take on it is that life is one gigantic mystery, and we have to accept that that’s what makes the whole thing interesting. Like one big mystery film, where we never really know the answer until the very end.

Amenabar discusses a scene with actress Fionnula Flanagan who pays Mrs. Mills 

So as you can see, Mr. Ebert was freaking wrong! The Others not only offers up an excellent ghost story with palpable atmosphere and mood, drenched in darkness and whispers, with things that go bump in the night, it also has something important to say. The way I see it, we all end up believing what makes us happy, and if believing in Jesus and heaven works for you, great! More power to you my friends. Just don’t judge ‘The Others’ that think differently. As long as we don’t hate or kill each other for thinking differently, there is room in this world for diversity of thought and evolution.

Rating: 5 out of 5