The Woman in Black First Impressions and the Problem With First Acts

So I went to see The Woman in Black last night and ended up walking out after an hour. This wasn't a detriment to the film, I was with a friend who had a mild medical condition that forced us to leave. I definitely would have stayed through the movie if I had the chance but I didn't have any major qualms about walking out. Truthfully, the film kinda bugged me but in ways that left me a bit confused.

Off the bat, the film had two flaws that were annoying me. Firstly, the set design of the mansion was quite underwhelming. In these types of films, the "haunted house" needs a expansive and barren quality. This mansion just felt too small and too cluttered. The sound design and Radcliffe do their damnedest to make it look creepy but it just doesn't translate. Maybe this was an effort to have a more "realistic" portrayal of a mansion in this era but it doesn't support the horror aspect. Another problem was the editing. Now I'm the LAST person to complain about modern filmmaking trends but the editing here is just too fast. Too many scenes cut to odd angles in lieu of letting the scene just play out. Its not a deal breaker but more of a nagging flaw.

But those pale in comparison to the major flaw. I walked out after a good solid hour and the first act was just ending. The characters were done being introduced and the film was finally getting into it's second act. That's ridiculous. A 90 minute movie where abut 75% is build up? Maybe it justifies it with a balls-out ending (something along the lines of what Insidious did) but reviews I've read lead me to doubt that. It's not that I don't like slow movies that pace their time. I do, but aside from a couple stand out scenes The Woman in Black's first act is mostly exposition and foreshadowing. There's a subplot with Radcliffe and his son but that comes off as character development or a possible misdirection. Either way, I feel slightly robbed when I pay $10 for a film that is mostly build-up.

And this is a problem that isn't unique to this film. It's fairly common one and that's what makes it all the more aggravating. I like the film, but the first hour of Inception is a chore to sit through and I firmly believe that the film is not that re-watchable. I'm no fan of the generic three act structure but at least films that adhere to this tend to move at a good pace. This is why people hate The Haunting remake in '99. Most of the damn movie is just figuring out what the story is.

Hacky screenwriters have a tendency to believe that they have to explain EVERY aspect of their story for fear of being called out for plot holes. Here's the thing, plot holes are forgivable if the story, characters, situation, ect. is good enough. People who get hung up on minor plot holes say they love movies, but truthfully they just love proving movies wrong. Good job, you've bested a piece of celluloid. Well worth your time.

Films are visual for a reason. A properly constructed shot can say way more about a character than a page worth of exposition. Think of the first shot of Orson Welles in The Third Man. Do we really need half an hour of him explaining himself to "get" what kind of person he is. No, the shadows, camera angles and Cotten's reaction is all we need. You can watch the scene out of context and still get that. Please, if I paid to see a movie then show me a movie. I already watched the trailer, you've convinced me. Don't be a tease.

Mood: Embarassed

Chronicle