Year: 2014 (U.K release 2015)
Director: David Robert Mitchell
Screenplay: David Robert Mitchell
Starring: Maika Monroe, Keir Gilchrist, Jake Weary
Synopsis is here
A friend of mine, warned me about It Follows not being
“scary” in the slightest. Informing me of the walkouts he had in his
screening, he was quick to label the film as pretentious. Once that word was
used I was wary about his reaction. However, when the film made a splash with
some of my other film friends last year at the London Film Festival, I was even
more cautious. I saw one tweet from an acquaintance labelling it as one of the
horror films of the decade. After finally viewing the film on the Saturday of
its opening weekend. I can safely say that while I lay somewhere in the middle
of both reactions, the film’s unsettling style and thoughtful subtext had me
wondering about the film in fascination for a good two days.
It Follows is not scary in the now more conventional sense of
long banging jump scares (although one such moment is perfectly handled). The
film mines great amounts of discomfort from it’s startlingly simple premise. If
you have sex with someone who has had “it” passed on to them, then “it”, a
shape shifting apparition, will follow you. It makes a beeline for you. It’s
slow, yet unrelenting. It can look like someone you know, or a complete
stranger. Once “it” has you, then it leaves your mangled corpse before moving
on to the person who passed it before.
Part of the film’s strangeness comes from the various human
forms the shape takes. One of the earlier scenes has us witness “it” as an
elderly woman. Once you consider the films mechanics, the film becomes more
disquieting. It takes forms of people these teens know and love. This not only
disarms the youths, but also implies transgressive consanguinity based anxieties,
which are difficult to shake off. Two of the key scenes are quick to remind you not
only of the absence of adults, but also the destruction of the suburban family.
A well-known component of U.S horror, which often rears its head amongst the
strongest entries of the genre.
Then the film contrasts this
with the way it observes teenage sexually (particularly female) and relationships.
Marking them with a keen eye for closeness and rapport. While the dialogue
isn't remarkable, the performances do grow as the film continues and the icky
creepiness of the premise and the cold deliberate dread of the film then really
takes hold. Highlighting relationships, not too dissimilar to the seemingly
parentless teens who permeate the films of Larry Clark. A sense of loneliness
begins to penetrate throughout. Parents are often heard but never really seen,
while most of the information shared between the kids never trickles up to
them, only emphasizing the generation gaps and isolation.
The main reason the film manages to instill such a beautiful
sense of dread, is its cinematography. Excuse me for my hyperbole (I’m sure you
have before), but I can’t think of a horror film which lies so much fear on
such precise compositions. Utilising the widescreen format (as well as autumn,
suburb setting) in a way that harks back to one of horror’s granddaddies:
Halloween. While so many horror films have attacked the forefront and centre .
It Follows, like Halloween, understands just how disturbing things are when
we’re not fully focused on them. Things don’t jump out in It Follows, they
stalk towards. Close ups make us restless, as due to their tightness, we can’t
peer round the frame. Innocuous background characters, suddenly pose threat
when walking into the shallow depth of field.
The film becomes a “Guess Who” of the genre, gleefully recalling the
“did you see that” feeling of Carpenters 1978 hit feature.
Unfortunately It Follows sometimes suffers from some frustrations. A character informs another of a
certain rule and it’s broken with a hint of irony. One could easily place this
down to fear and I urge you should for more enjoyment. However, the fact that
characters play a little fast and loose with the rules more than once, only
reminds me of just how Scream (1996) broke a generation of film goers. The film also feels more than a little indulgent at the best of times. Not all the directorial
flourishes always help tell the story or build the character while the music
often comes off as more jarring and incessant.
However, by the end of the film, It Follows posed questions
and feelings that, much like Kill List (2009), or Ringu (1998) provoked me with
a complexity and ambition that I so often crave from a horror film. Much of the
films beauty lies in the fact that despite having elements that will remind
folks of Kids (1995), Final Destination (2000), Under the Skin (2014), The Terminator
(1984), The Night of the Hunter (1955) or the photographic works of Gregory
Crewdson, It Follows never feels like it a list of obvious homages. It never
rests on its retro leanings or its laurels. It uses subtext to its advantage
and does what I feel a good horror should do: make the mundane feel
frightening. It Follows sets a high bar for horror movies in 2015. Unlike my friend in the first paragraph, I hope
that the other contenders can keep up.
