OR DOES IT?: It Follows and 3 Hearts


First, a word from our sponsors. Ever wonder what a reader for a contest or agency thinks when he reads your screenplay? Check out my new e-book published on Amazon: Rantings and Ravings of a Screenplay Reader, including my series of essays, What I Learned Reading for Contests This Year, and my film reviews of 2013. Only $2.99. http://ow.ly/xN31r

 

and check out my Script Consultation Services: http://ow.ly/HPxKE

Warning: SPOILERS
it followsTeen sexuality in movies has changed quite a bit over time, of course. In the 1930’s and ‘40’s, teens were seen as innocents who got caught up in chaste, but ridiculous romantic misfires (like Andy Hardy).
In the 1950’s and 1960’s, it became a social issue with fears of juvenile delinquency (Rebel Without a Cause), unwanted pregnancy (Blue Denim) and if you’re Natalie Wood, a trip to the loony bin (Splendor in the Grass). And we haven’t even got to those luridly bad, but fun movies they showed in high school about STD’s.
Then finally, with the arrival of such films as Friday the 13th, Halloween and Carrie, teen sexuality became associated with death, with all the bad boys and girls getting theirs after having done the deed and only the virgins managing to survive.
And today, we have yet another version of when teens have sex with writer/director David Robert Mitchell’s new horror film It Follows.

 

Mitchell earlier gained attention with his low budget The Myth of the American Sleepover. It gained a quick cult following and high praise. I have to be honest and say it seemed a fairly bland film to me, with bland technical values, bland characters, bland actors and a bland, somewhat, unimaginative screenplay, though it really struck a chord with a number of movie goers.

 

With It Follows, Mitchell has taken a strong step forward from a technical standpoint. The movie looks well made with solid cinematography, stronger directing, stronger acting and a much more interesting basic idea.

 

But I still think he has trouble when it comes to his screenplays.

 

It first must be said that no matter the movie’s faults, it is very scary, often very, very scary, even up to its somewhat ludicrous end. Mitchell knows how to build a scene to get the most sitting on the edge of your seats effect from it.

 

He also has a very nice feel for middle-class suburban life, the neat manicured lawns, a certain lethargy to everyone’s lives, something always going on outside at someone else’s house.

 

And, as I said, the basic idea is quite clever, even brilliant. Jay, our heroine, has sex with Hugh, a boy she has recently met. He’s a little odd at times, but he’s hot and she’s bored and wants to do it with him. But afterwards, Hugh has some news, and it’s not good.

 

Now that she has had sex with him, this entity will be coming after her to kill her. It will follow her (hence the title) for the rest of her life until she has sex with someone and passes it on. If this entity kills her, then it will come back for Hugh. He then says, it was great, kid, but I am so out of here.

 

So basically, we have The Ring with a deadly form of a syphilis.

 

But Mitchell does do something quite smart here. He doesn’t explain the entity. He explains why it follows everyone, but he doesn’t explain what it is, where it came from and why it’s doing what it does. Which just adds to the terror of what is going on.

 

So at this point, Jay starts seeing this entity (always in a different form—and this is one of the areas where Mitchell gets his biggest scares—the entity never looks the same twice and is always really eerie in appearance) and she has to figure out what to do. When her friends eventually believe her, they find Hugh again to get more information.

 

And this is where the movie stops working and I mean, it really stops making any sort of sense.

 

The movie is called It Follows, but I suggest that it unintentionally has a double meaning. Yes, this entity always follows after its victim, but the plot doesn’t always follow logically from the premise.

 

In fact, when they find Hugh and he tells them what he knows, I quickly realized that Mitchell hadn’t really thought the rules of the game through. And at this point, starts contradicting them.

 

Hugh first tells them that he still sees this entity. That’s totally against everything that was set up originally. There is only one entity so it can’t be in two places at once (or if that is Mitchell’s intention, he drops the ball by not telling us and explaining this rule).

 

In fact, if this entity is supposed to always be walking toward Hugh, the rule gets contradicted in an earlier scene where Hugh and Jay are at a movie theater where Hugh points out someone that Jay can’t see. But he points this character out as if it is not moving toward him. That’s passing Go without collecting $200.00.

 

This violation of the rules is continued later on when Jay sees a naked man standing on top of her roof. It’s an eerie sight, but if the entity is always supposed to be moving toward her, there’s no reason for it to be on the roof since that’s not in Jay’s path line. There’s also no explanation for how it got up there (the entity is corporal to some degree; it can’t walk through walls and door, but has to break in, so it couldn’t just fly to the roof).

 

Anyway, Hugh also says he thinks he got it from a one night stand, a woman he met at a bar. If this is so, then how does he know any of the rules? Who told him? If the woman at the bar told him, he would know that it was her and he wouldn’t be wondering about it. But if he doesn’t know who passed it on to him, then no one told him the rules, so how does he know them?

 

The Ring, on the other hand, has very clear rules and is consistent about following them. Here, it feels as Mitchell started writing them out, but then just stopped and winged it for most of the movie.

 

At this point, the forward momentum slows a bit since the set up basically doesn’t have an out. There is no suggestion that there is a way to get rid of this entity. Then something happens at a remote location that does hint at a promise of a solution: the others realize they can know where the entity is by throwing something like a blanket on it, and also that it gives out a weird energy (when someone attacks it, it thrusts him away leaving marks, like an electric shock).

 

But even with this, the forward momentum doesn’t really pick up the pace that much.

 

Then one of the characters, Paul, comes up with an idea, an idea that leads to one of the more ludicrous and at the same time terrifying moments of the film. They gather at a swimming pool with all sorts of electronic appliances and devices and will try to get the entity into the pool and then electrocute it to non-existence.

 

Now why they think this will work, I don’t know, but hey, it’s something.

 

But things don’t go as planned and Paul ends up shooting the entity in the head (yeah, there’s a gun, it’s part of the story, but I’m not going back to explain how). Whether this kills it or not is ambiguous, and that’s fine. It does lead to a creepy ending and allows for sequels.

 

However, as I said, this scene is perhaps the most ludicrous one in the movie, for several reasons. The first is that the electronics they plug in are not just the usual suspects of hair dryers, but also the sort of TV no one has seen in the suburbs for like ten years, as well as other things that no one really has any more, like bulky electric typewriters.

 

You see, one of the oddities of this movie is that one of the characters has a tablet type reader (it’s kind of cute; it’s in packaging that looks like a compact), but no one has cell phones, or computers, or modern TVs. It’s quite distracting, in fact.

 

But perhaps the most mind-boggling turn here is that one of the characters gets shot in the leg and ends up in the hospital. And Jay and Paul are just sitting there with her, in her hospital room, keeping her company.

 

I’m sorry. This character was shot in the leg and is in the hospital and Jay and Paul are just sitting there keeping her company.

 

Where are the police (all gunshot wounds have to be reported by a hospital to the authorities) and once the police and parents got involved, just what in hell did the three tell them about what happened and why they had a gun and why they took all these electronic devices to the pool, etc.

 

In fact, except for a few perfunctory scenes at the beginning, adults are conspicuously absent.

 

I just didn’t know how to react to this scene. It’s so completely…well, I don’t have a word for it. Like much of the movie.

 

The acting is perfectly fine and the roles are played by Keir Gilchrist as Paul; Maika Mona as Jay; and Jake Weary as Hugh.

 

Right now, the movie is more style than substance, but I’m not sure that ultimately works to the film’s advantage here.

 

 

3 heartsHow you react to 3 Hearts, the new French film written by Julian Boivent and the director Benoît Jacquot, will probably depend on how you feel about the opening scenes.

 

In a small French town, Marc, a tax inspector, misses his train to Paris. While figuring out what to do, he meets Sylvie and they have a connection and end up walking around town all night talking about themselves.

 

If you feel that these two had not just a connection, but a huge, spiritual, merging of two souls and fall deeply in love, so much in love they can’t live without each other, you might find the rest of the movie emotionally involving.

 

I’m afraid I didn’t. I saw two people meeting, having a nice time, but nothing that earth shattering. And because of that, the rest of the movie seemed much ado about nothing.

 

The plot twist is that Sylvie and Marc arrange to meet the next Friday in Paris. Sylvie even leaves her boyfriend. But Marc has a mild heart attack on the way there and misses Sylvie. Sylvie returns to her boyfriend and they move to the U.S. for the boyfriend’s work.

 

Not long after, Marc runs into Sylvie’s sister Sophia and the two fall in love and get married, Marc having no idea that Sophia is Sylvie’s sister. So now, what will happen when Sylvie finds out about Marc and vice versa?

 

The plot is not that convincing. It takes a lot of manipulation, and of the tortious sort, on the part of the writers to make sure that Marc never once sees a picture of Sylvie until he gets in too deep with Sophie, and it’s not particularly persuasive. But what’s a bit hard to buy is that once Marc does find out, why doesn’t he tell Sophie about the meeting?

 

Well, if you buy in the first scene this spiritual connection that is so powerful it dominates everything else that happens, then you might find this turn believable and intriguing.

 

But I couldn’t. I couldn’t even take it that seriously. So the movie goes on and on and on and on as you wait for everything to play itself out. And it takes quite a bit of time to do so.

 

It’s one of those movies that really should be over in about thirty minutes, but goes on for almost two hours.

 

It’s a dream cast and everyone does what they can. Charlotte Gainsborough (of such Lars Van Trier films as Nymphomaniac and Melancholia) is Sylvie; Chiara Mastroianni (of Love Songs and Bastards) is Sophie; and Benoît Poelvoorde (perhaps after all these years most memorably known as the serial killer in Man Bites Dog) is Marc. Catherine Deneuve plays Sylvie and Sophia’s mother; she doesn’t have that much to do, but she is the great Deneuve.

 

Advertisements

12 Comments

  1. You’d be talking me out of seeing a lot of films but I can’t afford first run films at this time and there’s Redbox. A buck fifty isn’t a big deal but it’s a wait. Because of the cast and cinematic images, I’m looking for Inherent Vice. It looks like it set the bar high by trying to be another Big Lewbosky. I really enjoyed that review when you mixed the review with the personal. I find this angle of reviewing a film unique and different. I know you don’t know everyone in the film industry but it sets you apart in style.

  2. In regards to IT FOLLOWS, it felt like a lot of it was meant to keep us off base. What year was it supposed to be? Like you said, the e-reader seems to totally contradict the mid-80’s feels. But then we see modern cars here and there. The rules are not always followed (like why did it hide behind the girl with glasses when it first shows up in the house). At times it appears as if from thin air, other times breaking through windows. Like you said, the adults are either always gone or just ignoring the kids when they are on screen. I feel there was a deeper meaning to all of it that I am waiting for someone else to point out to me.

      • For sure scary. Very John Carpenter. It reminded me of movies I would watch when I lived in Dallas as a kid that they put on if a baseball game ran short. They always started at a weird point, no idea what the title was, but scarier because I was slightly confused.

        Debating this movie with some friends and one of them pointed out maybe this movie wasn’t going in sequential order. The girl at the start was on a cell phone to her dad by the ocean, but then all the TV’s were tube TV’s (and the commercials running during the movies were from the 80’s in Michigan.) But then you’ve got that damn e-reader.

    • That’s what I found so interesting. The rules were not applied evenly. We were never sure where we were, what was happening, what the relationships between everyone was, where the parents were. That weird 8-Mile speech, the visits to the hospital, the various actions of everyone. Besides being on edge because of ‘it’, I was ill at ease just because nothing was fitting together right.

    • Excellent points. Did you see the interview with the writer today? He explained some of it, like the crazy ‘let’s throw toasters in the pool’ idea as being exactly what dumb kids would come up with as a plan. If you view all their actions through that lens, that they really don’t have parents/adults that care about them in the crumbling ruins of Detroit and thus have no one to turn to for help or information, it flows a little better.

  3. I think that’s where the difference comes between those who really like it and those who are not so strong on it. If one sees these oddities as purposeful and adding to the strangeness, then the movie will have a stronger effect and will be liked better. I tended to see them as clumsy and a movie not well thought out, so I was constantly taken out of the movie. Neither viewpoint is necessarily wrong, really.

  4. Nice write up of It Follows (will read other part later), although I have to say that I didn’t find it scary at all and I am a jumpy person by nature who can’t do horrors. The only time I jumped through the entire movie involved the red ball.

    And I have to admit that I missed the mystery of what the creature was, or perhaps more importantly why it was. That is the type of thing that holds me in a story…I want to solve the mystery before the kids do.

    That being said, you raised some interesting points about the story (both in favour and against) that I hadn’t considered in my review (on my blog) and I very much appreciate that as I struggle to consider the movie more fully.

    Looking forward to reading more of your reviews in the future.

So tell me what you think.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s