Guillermo del Toro, one of our most imaginative and visionary filmmakers, has taken up a side-line as Producer and Executive Producer of a series of independent films that neatly fit with his most cherished themes and his passion for stories that take place on the border between the Horror and Fantasy genres.
"Mama" is the latest of these films - a spooky tale of two young girls almost killed in the woods by their desperate father (who has just murdered his wife) saved by a mysterious, supernatural creature (the titular 'Mama') and raised by her in the wild. Discovered by their paternal uncle's search party five years later, the sisters have become truly feral, and uncle Jeffrey (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) gains custody of them with his girlfriend Annabel (Jessica Chastain). Little do they know that the girls did not survive alone and that their previous 'foster-mother' has no interest in letting her girls go that easily.
It's easy to see why the material appealed to del Toro: "Mama" is an intimate, relationship-driven combination of horror and fantasy with a strong focus on the children who have the closest connection to the supernatural. But while the first of these del Toro-'branded' projects, 2007's "The Orphanage," was a true artistic success, "Mama" falls well short of the mark, despite a strong visual flare and a couple of nice directorial touches.
The film looks lovely, with an appropriately desaturated color palette, chiaroscuro lighting with rich blacks and good use of effects work - both practical and CGI. 'Mama' herself is very well-crafted, a combination of effects augmenting a brilliant motion-captured physical performance by Javier Botet. The general wisdom these days is that you want to show as little as possible for as long as possible of the creature in the feature, a la "Jaws" or Val Lewton's RKO pics. That's generally a great strategy when the primary purpose of the movie is suspense and / or horror, but "Mama" takes a different approach, showing us more and earlier than other films might. I think that was appropriate here, because this isn't a pure fear-driven movie. "Mama" has some serious failings but, to its credit (and also its detriment), it has more on its mind than just making us jump.
But, oh, does "Mama" want us to jump - in fact, it could be Exhibit A in the People's Case against over-used jump scares. Almost every horror movie has those moments when the creature / killer / really dangerous thing pops up and attacks, menaces its prey or just terrifies us (the old "he's behind you!"). Usually this is accompanied by a sudden audio sting, often a very high note - a shriek of violin or a pling! of a piano key. If you turn the volume down, though, you realize that it's usually the sudden noise that makes you jump, not the image alone. It's like William Castle's Tingler (TM) - a little buzzer under your seat that makes you feel a jolt of fear, whether you want to or not.
When jump scares are used skilfully by a Director who has created an atmosphere of suspense, dread or just good old-fashioned horror, it can be a very effective way of taking the viewer past suspension of disbelief and into pure identification with the terrified characters. It's the final note of a well-constructed crescendo.
Used lazily, though, it's a lot more like the Tingler - a cheap trick, and one that, minus the wacky William-Castle-style novelty, is kind of insulting to its audience. And that's exactly how it's used in "Mama," over and over (I think I actually told the film to "piss off" out loud at least once). The feral kids pop up out of nowhere, Mama pops up out of nowhere, the light flickers, Annabel wakes up from a nightmare and it's audio stings and Tingle all the way.
"Mama" is Director Andres Muschietti's first feature and it really shows in his lack of confidence that his story, characters and visuals will pull us in. It's not just the Tingling that he uses to hammer us over the head.
Exposition in a horror film is never easy, as it generally involves stopping the story's forward motion and diffusing its tension to explain something that's fundamentally nonsensical. But, boy, does Muschietti blow it here. The kid's psychologist, Dr Dreyfuss, out to make a name for himself, does the research and explaining here and I cringed for actor Daniel Kash whenever he doled out or received the information-that-explains-it-all.
The narrative has its own clunkiness, too, both in predictability and contrivance. For the former, just look to the moment when the (not-so) good doctor decides to go down to the cabin in the woods where the girls were raised by Mama. He does so in the dead of night, alone and without telling anyone. How do we think that will work out for him?
As for contrivance: For an example of the latter, the girl's uptight, unsympathetic Aunt Jean who wants custody of the girls decides that she should break in to the girls house to get 'evidence' for Child Protective Services on the very night the supernatural excrement hits the ventilator. Why? Not because it's true to her character as established, not because it really makes sense as a plan, but because it's really, really convenient for setting up the film's finale.
There's one scene that really worked for me, which feels like the work of a more confident Director. Holding a completely static shot with no cut-aways, Muschietti shows us on one side of the frame the upstairs hallway and on the other the children's room. On the right side, we see younger sibling Lily in her room happily playing with a game of tug-of-war with a blanket. On the left we see Jessica Chastain as Annabel walking toward the room. Instead Annabel sees Victoria and turns around.
It takes a second to work out, but Lilly is obviously playing with Mama, and Annabel is heading towards seeing the creature full-on. It's a creepy scene both because of the tension of wondering if Annabel is walking into danger - a tension unreleased in the long shot until the end of the scene, and enhanced by the fact that we never see Mama. But what makes it more interesting is that, while we know from the get-go that Mama is fully capable of being lethal, she and Lilly really are just playing together and having a great time - Annabel might be in danger but Lilly isn't.
More than anything else, "Mama" feels like a missed opportunity to me. Mama herself is a great creature not only visually, but also narratively - she's a monster / villain with actual complexity of motivation, not just a 'killer who had a traumatic think happen and now he / she needs to everyone because trauma.' This is a film with an intriguing premise that would be well worth re-making. If put in the hands of the right Director, this could be a great little B-movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment