Monday, March 12, 2012

Silent House

Regardless of what you think of the end result, there’s something to be said about a movie (especially one buried in the many clichés of the horror genre) that attempts something different.

In the case of Silent House, the trick is that it is shot in one extended take using a consumer-grade camera. And, again, at 85 minutes long (minus time for opening and closing credits) that is a fine cinematographic accomplish, no matter how poorly you receive the actual film.

Silent House follows Sarah (Elizabeth Olsen) around for roughly an hour and 20 minutes as she initially walks from room to room with her father and uncle in the vast lake house they are remodeling (which has no power, obviously), before ultimately, unsuccessfully trying to exit the house from apparent psychopathic squatters. Thuds are heard from upstairs, flashlights slowly pan one room then another then another, chases are had, escapes are attempted, and so on.

Now, as someone who fancies himself an amateur independent filmmaker, it is impossible for me to watch a movie like Silent House and not be impressed. The same way it is impossible for me to not be completely blown away by Edward Burns’ Newlyweds. The filmmakers are using resources that most anyone has available to them, and they’re using them rather well. Was Silent House shot in one single take? No, it was not. And to be honest, it isn’t that difficult to tell. (Gustavo Hernández’s original The Silent House was shot with the Canon 5D Mark II in one authentic take, which is one of the reasons it is slightly better than the US version.)
One take or not, there’s more to enjoy about Silent House than its technical proficiency. For one, there’s Elizabeth Olsen who, for my money, is equally as good here as she was in Martha Marcy May Marlene. She’s often forced to convey a multitude of emotions without cutting or turning away from the lens. It’s a wholly impressive feat. As is the filmmakers’ extremely limited use of gore, and sound effects and music to evoke forced frights.

In short, I know Silent House has been garnering mediocre-to-bad reviews, and I can understand why. Me? Despite the fact that I accurately guessed the ending roughly 20 minutes in, I remained equally impressed and thrilled throughout. Which is saying something. B+

11 comments:

  1. Sounds like an alright film. Will look for it on DVD. For my money though, there is no greater one-take movie (or film that creates the illusion of one take) than RUSSIAN ARK. Although IRREVERSIBLE does it pretty well too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Tyler Oh for sure, it's simply inarguable: Russian Ark is the tell all end all of extended takes. Irreversible is incredible too. GoodFellas, Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Godard... christ it's endless. But Russian Ark is the master.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It automatically gets a B+ for having Elizabeth Olsen. Ahhh Elizabeth Olsen... *dreams*

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Alex Thomas Yeah she has... talent. On a variety of levels.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Saw the original and I'm not a fan. I'll probably see this on DVD. Is the twist the same as in the original?

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Robert Yes sir. You know, the more I read about the original, the more people seem skeptical that it was shot in one take. If it was not, then that's a real bummer to me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Didn't Hitchcock's Rope do this one shot technique as well? Correct me if I'm wrong.

    I've seen the Uruguayan film, like you I was impressed by the implementation of idea, but however I was not greatly impressed by the story which somewhat fell to pieces in the final act.

    Might see this for Olsen, a rising star, who was superb in MMMM.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Correction, Rope is a series of long extended takes of about 10 (I remember from your lost past).

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Myerla Yeah the only other film, to my knowledge, that was legitimately shot in one take is the remarkable Russian Ark. Difference is, Russian Ark was ACTUALLY shot in one take, where this Silent House was clearly not. At any rate, I really liked it. And if you like Olsen, I really think you'll dig her here.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's a horror flick that's definitely a lot better than what you would expect in today's day and age, much ado to the technical side of it, but for some reason, the ending seems like a bit of a let-down. At least Olsen is easy on the eyes. Good review Alex.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Dan O. Yeah like I said, even though I guessed the ending, I was happy with it. Shit, how refreshing is it that she isn't being haunted by ghosts or zombies or vampires or whatever? And yes, Olsen is quite easy on the eyes indeed haha.

    ReplyDelete