Written By: Dan Geer
Director James Watkins’ latest film, The Woman in Black, is the type of horror film that only comes along once in a blue moon. Moviegoers have not really been properly treated to gothic horror on the silver screen since the days when Universal, Hammer, and American International Pictures made it commonplace back in the 1930s-70s. Nothing since then has been done quite as effectively – although films like The Others and The Wolfman remake had their moments. Gothic horror is simply an all but forgotten genre that barely gets touched in modern-day film-making.
So, it really comes as no surprise that the recent reemergence of Hammer Film Productions would lead to the creation of such an effective film that harkens back to that golden age of horror when it was all about ominous warning and creepy atmosphere – and it pleases this reviewer to say that it is truly a warm welcome back to the genre.
The Woman in Black, based on the 1983 thriller novel of the same name by Susan Hill, stars Harry Potter alum Daniel Radcliffe as Victorian-era lawyer Arthur Kipps, who, four years prior, lost his wife during childbirth. Struggling with the memory of his late wife, his career begins to suffer for it. As a result, in a last-ditch effort to save his job, Kipps is forced to take a business trip to a small remote village in the gloomy northern part of England. The objective is simply to sort out the paperwork of a client who recently passed away by the name of Mrs. Drablow, which requires him to take up residence for a few days at the house where she died.
Isolated from the rest of the village by the surrounding fog-covered marshlands that lap the only road connecting the Drablow mansion to civilization, Kipps starts to uncover the dark secrets surrounding Mrs. Drablow’s death, and also begins to experience the undeniable ghostly presence of a woman dressed in black haunting the Drablow house. What’s more, he finds out through his occasional visits into town that she has been terrorizing the local villagers as well, who seem all too displeased with Kipps’ visit to the Drablow mansion for reasons unbeknownst to him. With his career on the line, Kipps is forced to stay and finish what he started, leading ultimately to his attempt at unraveling the mystery of the woman in black, and perhaps a way to end her vengeance against the villagers.
The film hits all the right beats in terms of classic horror film ambiance, and fans of the genre will have nothing but high praise for it. Director James Watkins really understands how a gothic horror film should look and feel, and proves himself a master in the art of scaring an audience. It is a film completely worthy of the Hammer title, and will have horror buffs clamoring for more.
With The Woman in Black, Watkins wisely focuses on creating an unsettling atmosphere and a sense of dread regarding the Drablow mansion, surrounding the house with silent graveyards, foreboding marshlands, and nearby villagers who fear even discussing the house or the events that took place there. Within the house itself, the silence is deafening, and our senses begin to play tricks on us through light, shadow, sound, and clever positioning of the camera. While we do actually get glimpses of the eerie spectre and other various haunts around the house – either directly or indirectly – the majority of the time the audience tends to see things that aren’t really there, creating a sense of unease with every shot. The film understands how to balance what we see with what we don’t see, which is a quality most horror movies just don’t seem to get quite right these days.
Of course, it can be said that many of the scare tactics used here have been done before many times over. But nothing is wrong with that just so long as they are done well. This film is actually great at making the old-fashioned techniques seem fresh again. Even when, for example, sudden loud bursts in the soundtrack occur immediately following complete silence, they are really utilized conservatively here, which makes them very effective when they do happen. Nothing is overdone in the film, even the computer-generated effects, which are almost nonexistent here, only showing up when absolutely necessary.
What is really underdone in the film, however, is the character of Arthur Kipps. Daniel Radcliffe proved himself a worthy actor in the Harry Potter films, but it is a shame that he really isn’t given much to do in terms of performance for his first film outing since the Potter series ended. There is nothing really wrong with his performance, but it is severely understated. More emotion and screen presence can be found coming from the supporting cast in the film – particularly with actors CiarĂ¡n Hinds and Janet McTeer, who completely outshine Radcliffe’s character as the wealthy Mr. and Mrs. Daily. The script shows promise for Radcliffe’s character, but it simply does not go far enough to allow him the opportunity to create any notable character moments. Most of the time he just carries a blank stare of fright throughout the majority of the film as the story progresses, with not much dialogue to work with.
But when all is said and done, Radcliffe did the very best with what he was given, and the film as a whole is a constant thrill. It has been quite a while since a horror film came along that, while not all that original, still feels like something we haven’t experienced before. Maybe it is merely because we simply haven’t seen gothic horror done so well for so long, but it doesn’t seem that way. Perhaps the answer lies within the compelling nature of the story itself. Either way, the only thing that can be said for certain is that the film has a keen sense of spooky atmosphere that sucks you in from start to finish, and the ability to intelligently terrify an audience with every frame. It is simply chilling, and honors the classic genre that inspired it. Just make sure that, when you watch the film, you watch it properly: At night, with the lights off and the sound up.
Related Reviews:
The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death