“The House of the Devil” Gets It Right, But is Hell-a Disappointing
As a stylistic experiment in 70s/80s horror-style filmmaking, The House of the Devil hits the nail on the head. It is clear that Ti West spent a great deal of time on the visual details of the film, making it look like a time capsule of a film straight from the 1980s. Horror fans will at the very least be impressed with the meticulous performances of lead actress Jocelin Donahue, Greta Gerwig and perhaps even with Ti West as well. West is certainly a rising star who has the potential to make great movies. But he has a lot to learn.
Jocelin Donahue in "The House of the Devil."
First thing’s first: I do not take pleasure in stomping on independent productions. But film is film. And the way we receive films hardly changes no matter how big the production budget may be. The House of the Devil really is a pretty decent film. In fact, I would actually recommend it. Atmospheric films which showcase a particular time and place are rare and should be appreciated on many levels. West achieves not only the look of the 1980s, but also how the 1980s were depicted in films which were made during that time. Unfortunately, even though Ti West can be credited with this, he is also the reason why most of us were disappointed with the film as a whole.
Most filmmakers consider filmmaking to be a collaborative process. There are filmmakers, however, who are so stubborn about their vision that they will do everything in their power to control as many aspects of a film’s production as possible. These people are sometimes called auteurs. They usually write, direct, edit, cast, and sometimes even compose soundtracks for these movies. Stanley Kubrick was a master auteur.
While there are many films which often avoid opening title sequences in order to keep audiences engaged in the cinematic experience, the first thing that stands out in The House of the Devil is West’s insistence on alerting his viewers that he himself is an auteur (or that he is attempting to be an auteur).
Aside from revealing to everyone in the theater that he was the cock in all of his film classes who assumed full credit of various projects by obnoxiously including “Written, Directed, and Edited By…” in the title sequence, West foolishly raises everyone’s expectations for the quality of the film. No, not because “Ti West” is such a household name–it isn’t. But instead because he is so goddamn proud of his work, himself, and his “vision.” Sorry, Ti. You’re not Quentin Tarantino. And now that you’ve assumed responsibilities for all three roles as writer, director, and editor, I’d be hard-pressed to put the blame on anybody else who was involved in the making of this film.
WRITTEN BY…
With a different writer or perhaps even a reliable Story Editor, The House of the Devil’s screenplay could have been more efficient. If a little film like this is ever going to be a major success and make lots of money, it needs to have a great story. The character of Samantha played by a pitch-perfect Jocelin Donahue seems to do an awful lot of waiting around and hanging out during the first hour of the film. It seems that West tried to show off his detailed mise en scene instead of focusing on moving the story forward. Those who disagree with this logic may contend that the film focused on style over substance–and this is certainly one of its great strengths. But you can’t have one without the other. Style over substance does not mean style without substance. Don’t bore us with style. Make us become so absorbed with the style that we can focus on the story.
Upon first seeing the film, we never truly know what awaits Samantha at the house she is hired to babysit at except for the fact that the Devil is involved in some way or another. There is nothing planted within the first hour of the film that compels viewers to guess or become fascinated with this house. No plants, no payoffs. Which is why West’s resolution doesn’t quite work.
DIRECTED BY…
Ti West did a tremendous job directing his actors. Everyone was on the same page and everyone was making the same movie. West knew what he was going for and was able to execute his idea through mostly sound directing.
One major criticism of West concerns his directorial decision-making during the climax of the film. Without giving anything away, West missed a major opportunity by not layering tension. In Psycho (1960), The Shining (1980), and even House of Wax (1953), directors succeeded in showcasing horrifying revelations to their respective protagonists. Psycho had Norman’s mother, The Shining had room 237, and House of Wax had, well…wax. The House of the Devil similarly deals with a special mystery of interest concerning a “forbidden room.”
But here’s where West goes wrong: he eliminates “the chase.” Characters in horror films must be running from something or someone. It’s a straight-up rule. And it’s a rule because it works so effectively. West instead attempts to do without a chase sequence, thereby instantly snapping the line of tension. Once you see this film, you’ll know just what I mean.
EDITED BY…
Come on, now! Was there really any need for Ti West to edit this film? The only conceivable reason I can think of is that he wanted to “beat the dead horse” by deliberately pacing the story slow by having long, drawn-out scenes to highlight the atmosphere. This strategy backfires half of the time as most scenes are so uneventful that we become bored.
Next time, share the wealth and spread the love. There are hundreds of over-qualified editors-for-hire out there, Ti.
———————————————————————————————————–
Charlie Wachtel is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade and Founder of www.filmcrusade.com
What the hell are you talking about? If the guy wrote, directed & edited the movie, then of course he should receive credit for writing, directing & editing it. In fact, he’s required by union rules to credit himself for every role he took on during production, so it wasn’t even a choice on his part… and certainly not a demonstration of hubris.
And no, crediting yourself for writing, directing & editing a movie is not seen as being “a cock” in film schools, or anywhere else, and it’s almost de facto standard to put the major production roles in the opening titles. For what it’s worth, the ‘A film by…’ credit is usually seen as hubristic and cocky, because it’s meaningless, misleading and egomaniacal. The ‘Written, directed & edited by…’ credit is none of those things.
It is very common for directors to edit their own material, especially nowadays in the age of digital intermediates. If West wants to edit a movie, then West certainly has the right. It has *nothing* to do with presuming to be an auteur. Auteur status is not based on assuming many roles, but on demonstrating a distinctive style across several movies. You even mention Kubrick as a superlative example of an auteur, yet he never served as principal editor on any of his movies. I repeat: what the hell are you talking about!?
You presume that West neglected collaboration, and yet he collaborated with a cinematographer, sound recordists, sound designers, producers, production designers, costume designers, makeup & wardrobe personel, etc., etc., etc. I’m assuming that, according to you, the only important roles in a production are the writer, director & editor…?
Regardless, you have it ass backwards. If the movie opened with “A film by Ti West,” that would’ve been a dickish credit. But opening it with “Written, directed & edited by Ti West” is, quite literally, an industry standard. Don’t get me wrong: I haven’t even seen this movie and I have no allegiance to Ti West (don’t know anything about him). It’s just irksome to see a fellow filmmaker blasted out of the water by some jackass behind a keyboard who’s making grandstanding presumption that, under any level of scrutiny, reveal themselves as absolute bullshit. I say this to you and to all the other ersatz critics roaming the Internet like scuttling little bugs: *review* the movie. Write about what you saw, how it made you feel, what’s effective, what isn’t. Don’t write about your silly little presumptions about how the movie was made, or why it was made, or what the filmmakers are like on a personal level, and then try to pass that off as some sort of critical analysis. It’s ridiculous, useless, and it amounts to nothing but a steady stream of fetid hot air.
Cheers,
A filmmaker who *gasp!* often serves as director and cinematographer on the same project!
CLC:
I appreciate your candid response. But with all due respect, you cannot refute an article which concerns “The House of the Devil” if you admittedly have not even seen the film! In my mind, there is nothing wrong with Written/Directed/Edited by conceptually. But the reality is that all filmmakers are not professionals in these three areas. Ti West did not have to take on all three jobs, but he wanted to because he desired the project to be his and his alone.
There are many hardworking editors out there who would not only be able to understand what West was going for but who would also be able to suggest innovative strategies at elevating the material. There are also a ton of writers out there who could take Ti West’s script and turn it into gold.
Until filmmakers like Ti West truly realize their talents and their limits, their films will never reach maximum potential.
Charlie, I hate to disagree with you and I am going to exclaim a cliche:
less is more. The only way to build up tension is to work on the aspects that create tension alone. “A throwback to Hitchcock” would be decent phrazing in assisting critiquing this film.
I like every aspect of this film, never having heard of Ti West or knowing that “The House of the Devil” is a low budget film in the indie sense. Yes the performances and set pieces were excellent but everything else worked, as well. It’s not just a film that looks like it was made in the 1980s simply through production values, it even sounds and feels like one. From when I had noticed the first camera zoom I could tell that the film would be shot in an “old school” 1980s manner and I smiled more with every other camera zoom to follow. The hair cuts, the editing… everything made this a virtuoso job of replicating the time period and its film style.
Story-wise I can not complain either because the film’s written introductions claim that “the following is unexplained”. Yet I understood every single aspect of the film and had no questions once it was over. Why? Because this writer/director/editor did a damn good job.
I am not criticizing your critique, I simply claim that your misconception of what ruined the film for you is what actuallt makes it good. Also, how you criticize it so much and yet still recommend it?