Saturday, May 5, 2012

Cabin in the Woods

I cannot stress this enough: if you haven't seen Cabin in the Woods, STOP READING! There are spoilers ahead and if any movie rewards the viewer for ignorance, it's this one. Even the trailer gives away too much of the mystery. A group of kids go to a cabin in the woods and it's a horror movie. That's all you need, nay, should know. So STOP READING (if you haven't already).
There hasn't really been an effective "meta" film since Scream (though I enjoy the entire series and feel able to argue the validity of each entry). What most filmmakers and screenwriters screw up is that they spend too much time winking at the audience and not enough time creating an interesting narrative with compelling characters. Scream works because the viewer doesn't need to be a horror expert to enjoy the film (much like Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz work as a straight zombie and action movies, respectively, which is why I don't view them as parodies). Sure, there are references thrown in, but that's the icing on the cake. No one is saying, "Billy Loomis? Like the guy from Halloween?" (one must assume Randy had that conversation with Billy long before the events of the movie take place).

So here we are, sixteen years later (thirteen if you take into account that Cabin in the Woods was made three years ago and waiting for a release), and Cabin in the Woods hits the screens. Fortunately, it's goals are entirely different than Scream's. Cabin isn't deconstructing a genre, per se, just using a common trope to get at bigger issues. Whereas Scream establishes the tropes in an effort to subvert them, Cabin uses tropes to point out that anything can happen given the right circumstance. Take a group of attractive young people, isolate them, and that's basically 80% of horror movies.

For example, once our group of "heroes" are in the cabin, almost everything they interact with is revealed to be a trigger for their demise. In the basement, each character nearly summons a different beastie until Dana (our virgin) summons the Buckner's, an undead family bent on killing. It could have just as easily been a merman or a messed up ballerina. Basically, in this cabin setting, we could have watched literally any subgenre of horror.
But who's in control of this? Viewers are used to just one layer to this scenario. Cabin, instead, has architects who are setting the blueprints for the cabin-goers demise. Played amazingly by Bradley Whitford and Richard Jenkins, these men are essentially gods (or screenwriters). They manipulate the cabin and the people within to direct them to certain decisions. There's loads of talk about "free will" and the odds are certainly stacked against our young friends so the amount of it is debatable, though I don't want to take this too far into a religious discussion (I can't help think about when Bender meets God on Futurama, though)

And on top of the architects are ancient gods for whom the young are sacrifices! We're all puppets! In the process of establishing this hierarchy, Cabin kind of explains the survivor girl trope, too. I particularly enjoyed this plot turn because I've been reading a lot of Lovecraft lately (OK, ALL of Lovecraft), and this ritual sacrifice to ancient beings is distinctly Lovecraftian. Basically, Cabin in the Woods plays with the genre and really shows how malleable horror is. It's a very fun and funny movie and I'm sure I'd get more out of it by watching it again (and, had I written this the day or day after I saw it, it might be more insightful). With all that said, here are some thoughts and observations:

-- I really wish this had been an international effort with filmmakers from five or so other countries making the versions alluded to in the film on the video monitors. How cool would that be? Like when comic books have the world's intersect. Each movie includes clips from the others, but they are all done with the tropes and signatures of the country's own horror films.

-- One thing that bugs me about meta films is that they try to have it both ways. By commenting on the action, you can really get away with anything. For example, I was pretty disappointed with the Buckner's because it was so familiar. Who needs more zombie-like creatures. However, Bradley Whitford's character comments on this. He is disappointed not only about the family (which I believe they've seen before), but also that it wasn't a merman, something Whitford has always wanted to see. Rubber was the worst offender of this by having a surrogate audience watch what we're watching. SOMETIMES I WANT TO SEE A TIRE THAT CAN BLOW PEOPLE'S HEADS UP WITHOUT COMMENTARY! (Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park also position them in a holier-than-thou position by mocking everything, including themselves. It makes them basically critic proof and is kind of brilliant. I hate them for it.)

-- Also, the stoner guy bugged the shit out of me, but that character sucks in most movies. Commentary or just annoying. I hate not being able to give my whole heart into complaining about him!

-- I was disappointed that the god at the end was humanoid. Probably residual Lovecraft yearning.

-- However, the beastie melee finale was epic and amazing and I smiled through the whole thing. And I don't know if it was intentional, but the cubes with the monsters in them reminded me a little of the movie cube with the way it was set up and also with having a different way to die in each box.

-- The scene of people rooting for the boobs: classic.

-- I loved that the cabin looked almost exactly like the Evil Dead cabin and the direct quote of that film when the cellar door flies open.

-- I ready in the comments on a friend's blog that someone didn't think the story/characters didn't develop beyond the concept. I disagree, though I hope that's clear above. But the comment made me think about the characters and I don't actually think that the group of young people are the one's we're supposed to care about in the end. The real protagonists are the architects of the cabin. I feel like we know and understand more about them and their lives and desires than the victims, who are just cyphers anyway (the movie says as much). Or maybe I just like them the best...

If you've seen the movie, let me know what you thought. I want to talk to someone about it!

1 comment:

  1. I actually agree with your assessment regarding the idea of character. I think I was talking to someone else who wanted to know more about the kids in the cabin, and I was politely deflecting that I thought he'd missed the point in wanting to see more about those characters. They aren't what the movie is about.

    Managing comments and trying to be friendly can be a challenge at times. JAL and I have been doing that same argument since at least 1993.

    ReplyDelete