Skip to main content

Scary Stories in a Mundane Movie


If you open up Alvin Schwartz’s Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark to just about any page, you’ll be confronted with a surreal and haunting illustration from Stephen Gammell, arguably too unnerving for the books’ target audience of children. These sketches more than the stories themselves (often already repurposed from folklore and urban legends), with their colourless depth, stylized shadows, vividly perverted features, and crude textures implying a deranged originator really have a way of sticking in the recesses of ones’ mind waiting to surface all of a sudden in some nightmare. I would venture to guess that such eldritch horror imagery is what captivated Guillermo del Toro, always a fan of the macabre.
The resulting movie of this fascination, also called Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, on which del Toro has a producing and story credit and is directed by André Øvredal, certainly acquiesces to the frightfulness of the books’ monster designs. Though never as effective in physical form as they are in the abstract, the mostly practical creature effects are immaculately creepy and unnerving. With the exception of one CGI corpse that bears an unfortunate resemblance to a 2000s video game creation, each of the horrors is tangibly adapted and strikingly scary. They’re a large part of what makes the horror sequences work, with the other key being rooted in the simple terror of these self-contained stories themselves. There’s a reason urban legends and seminal campfire stories like The Killer in the Back-Seat, the Licked Hand, The Babysitter, and (probably the most clichéd) The Hook, are, depending on the skill of the storyteller, still somewhat chilling. They have an inherently suspenseful structure, an identifiable context (for middle-class white people), and harrowing twists designed to play off your imagination. While that last aspect of their appeal can’t ever be adapted sufficiently to film, the monsters and scenarios can never be as scary as your personal fears can make them, that ominous suspense and relatability is conveyed fairly well by this movies’ direction, cinematography, editing, lighting and sound choices, and refreshing hesitance to depict any typical gore .
In between the horror sequences though, there’s very little the film has to offer to hold your investment until the next one. It boldly expects audiences to care about its teenage cast of walking stock characters led by the goth storyteller (Zoe Margaret Colleti) of a thousand mediocre Halloween specials (the first act is set at Halloween where it’s laughably apparent these trick-or-treaters are at least five years too old). The attempts to give a couple of them sad, motivational backstories that are inescapably lazy, if anything makes them less compelling and more transparently constructs. The same applies to the general plotting, which itself relies on expository dregs and tiresome conventions. Occasionally the film teases a meaningful consideration of something like grief or racism: the co-lead played by Michael Garza is a Latino boy avoiding the police. But then the movie would swiftly avoid delving into such topics and even throw in a magical black woman for good measure. Nothing in the relevant local history about Sarah Bellows, a woman who allegedly murdered children in a pedestrian haunted house, and her book of stories that write themselves holds any value apart from those very facts. Any notes of sympathy and psychological horror the movie wants to inspire in this focus on her life and death is misguided -the writing is simply not equipped to be A Haunting of Hill House style case study. The writing is not even equipped to give most characters decent dialogue.
It’s difficult not to prefer the idea of Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark as an anthology film. This does seem to be the most obvious form of presentation given the source material, and the filmmakers knew it. Ultimately del Toro’s reasons for not going that route were in his words, “anthology films are always as bad as the worst story in them, they’re never as good as the best story.” I don’t necessarily agree (Paris, je t’aime, The Animatrix, and Kurosawa’s Dreams are just a few examples to refute that point), but at the same time I understand the apprehension -there have been dozens of horror anthologies and how many are actually memorable? And so the movie devised a smart way around this, a means of translating the stories in a straightforward narrative. But the result in having the book manifest horrors inspired by the personal fears of the individuals it’s targeting makes the movie feel very derivative of It -something the presence of a young cast and few on-screen adult figures (Dean Norris, Gil Bellows) doesn’t help sway. Often you’re reminded of better horror movies this one’s borrowing its tropes from. Though the climax is well-paced and frighteningly claustrophobic, suggesting a darker and better ending than the one it delivers on, its resolution is bitterly banal, outdone by of all films, ParaNorman.
And yet Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark leaves off on a firm “to be continued…”, an audaciousness it doesn’t come close to earning, being neither strong nor singular enough. This is the kind of movie that is set in 1968 ostensibly just to avoid modern conveniences for its protagonists and to evoke a half-hearted sense of nostalgia (why boomer nostalgia, I don’t know) –there’s no narrative or aesthetic purpose for it. But the film is desperately chasing the success of It and Stranger Things without putting in the required effort where it’s most needed. The scary parts are suitably scary, and with everything else rather lacklustre, a version of this movie solely comprised of such scary parts sounds much more appealing.

Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Disney's Mulan, Cultural Appropriation, and Exploitation

I’m late on this one I know. I wasn’t willing to spend thirty bucks back in September for a movie experience I knew was going to be far poorer than if I had paid half that at a theatre. So I waited for it to hit streaming for free to give it a shot. In the meantime I heard that it wasn’t very good, but I remained determined not to skip it entirely, partly out of sympathy for director Niki Caro and partly out of morbid curiosity. Disney’s live-action Mulan  I was actually mildly looking forward to early in the year in spite of my well-documented distaste for this series of creative dead zones by the most powerful media conglomerate on earth. Mulan  was never one of Disney’s classics, a movie extremely of its time in its “girl power” gender politics and with a decidedly American take on ancient Chinese mythology. It got by on a couple good songs and a strong lead, but it was a movie that could be improved upon, and this new version looked like it had the potential to do that, emphasizing

The Hays Code was Bad, Sex in Movies is Good

Don't Look Now (1973) Will Hays, Who Knows About Sex In 1930, former Republican politician and chair of the Motion Picture Association of America Will Hayes introduced a series of self-censorship guidelines for the movie industry in response to a mixture of celebrity scandals and lobbying from the Catholic Church against various ‘immoralities’ creating a perception of Hollywood as corrupt and indecent. The Hays Code, or the Motion Picture Production Code, was formally adopted in 1930, though not stringently enforced until 1934 under the auspices of Joseph Breen. It laid out a careful list of what was and wasn’t acceptable for a film expecting major distribution. It stipulated rules against profanity, the depiction of miscegenation, and offensive portrayals of the clergy, but a lot of it was based around sexual content: “sexual perversion” of any kind was disallowed, as were any opaquely textual or visual allusions to reproduction, and right near the top “No licentious or suggestiv

Pixar Sundays: The Incredibles (2004)

          Brad Bird was already a master by the time he came to Pixar. Not only did he hone his craft as an early director on The Simpsons , but he directed a little animated film for Warner Bros. in 1999, that though not a box office success was loved by critics and quickly grew a cult following. The Iron Giant is now among many people’s favourite animated movies. Likewise, Bird’s feature debut at Pixar, The Incredibles , his own variation of a superhero movie, is often considered one of the studio’s best. And for very good reason, as the most talented director at Pixar shows.            Superheroes were once the world’s greatest crime-fighting force until several lawsuits for collateral damage (and in the case of Mr. Incredible, a hilarious suicide prevention), outlawed their vigilantism. Fifteen years later Mr. Incredible, now living as Bob Parr, has a family with his wife Helen, the former Elastigirl. But Bob, in a combination of mid-life crisis and nostalgia for the old day