By Keri O’Shea and Ben Bussey
Oh dear, looks like we once again need to contemplate changing the name of this site from Brutal As Hell to Contrary As Fuck. Everyone and their uncle seems to be currently raving about It Follows, and not without just cause: it’s rare that we see such a well-publicised major theatrical release afforded to a no-star horror movie from indie beginnings which isn’t a sequel, remake, reboot or otherwise regurgitation. Our own Tristan caught an early look at it in January and was also mightily impressed, so when Keri and myself ventured out to see it on opening weekend our hopes were high. However, soon enough we were both left wondering quite what It Follows had done to provoke such widespread enthusiasm, as we found every bit as much to dislike in the film as there was to admire.
We discuss the matter at length – and in heavy spoilers – below…
Ben: Okay. Well first off, I think the only way we’re really going to be able to do this is going into full spoiler territory. Readers who want to go on unspoiled are referred to Tristan’s review – although I would say he’s a bit more positive about it than I am.
Keri: Yep – agreed. So – I think my first comment would be along the lines of what you said to me at the screening we went to. We see a hell of a lot of indie films passing through – some great, some godawful, and every shade in-between. What has It Follows managed to do that a million other indies fail to do – how is it the film has garnered so much attention, with a trailer running on mainstream TV?
Ben: Yeah, I’ve been pondering that one a lot and I honestly can’t put my finger on it. Looking back at what we saw at the 2014 fests, It Follows doesn’t necessarily seem any more commercial than, say, Starry Eyes or Spring – yet Starry Eyes went straight to DVD and Spring’s getting only a limited cinema release next month I think.
Keri: Very strange, and maybe blind luck – though if the filmmakers have any tactic for achieving this sort of exposure, they should bottle and sell that. It’s frustrating actually, as a fan – the sheer amount of films I see that never get to this stage. But that’s the game, I guess.
Ben: I dunno – maybe it’s a slightly easier sell inasmuch as it relates to a more universal adolescent experience? Putting the whole supernatural stalker STD thing to one side, it’s essentially about teenagers hanging out in the summer, and the bonds that form under those circumstances.
Keri: Hmm, I dunno. Honestly, Spring’s about a summer love affair, Starry Eyes is about ambition – all pretty universal and recognisable. But I guess we could talk a long time about the whys and wherefores.
Ben: True. And I suppose they’re both a bit more out there – not that It Follows is necessarily much more down to earth. Still, the key macguffin of the supernatural stalker that never looks the same twice – that is a pretty cool idea, and put to good use.
Keri: So yeah, onto It Follows itself. It’s gotten a lot of praise, and its unstoppable, morphing predator is one big reason why. On reflection now, do you find it was effective?
Ben: I do, yeah. It was an interesting device, never knowing who the threat was – so anytime you see an unfamiliar person walking towards the main character Jay, you’re immediately put on edge. That gave the whole thing a nice slow-burning tension. The problem for me was that it didn’t go anywhere with that – it was all build-up and no pay-off. It was as if by the final act they literally didn’t know what else to do with it.
Keri: I was gunning for the film at first – I thought the slightly Scream-esque beginning (where what might be the heroine gets offed in record time by…something) was really promising, mysterious. And the build-up was interesting. When I realised that the premise was so shaky (and I’ll get to the use of sex in a while) it did feel like a let-down. That’s the other side of the whole ‘good idea’ thing. It needs fulfillment.
Ben: Like you said to me on the night, it needed just a little more exposition. Clearly they wanted to play it mysterious, and that worked up to a point, but it became evident about 30 minutes before the end that they had no idea where they were going with it. As such it’s no wonder it ended on such a total anti-climax (or that’s how it felt to me, at least). And just to do the anal pick-holes-in-their-logic thing, it was never clear how the ex-boyfriend knew so much about the bloody thing when he apparently picked it up from a one night stand he never saw again…
Keri: True. Or, considering how quickly It had tore through the guys on the boat, how anyone survived for any length of time.
Ben: I forget, did we learn that the guys on the boat had died? As I recall they left that whole thing very ambiguous.
Keri: We sort of did as It was back after Jay within a few hours!
Ben: Well, they must have been easy pickings, then. And speaking of ambiguities, there was the strange question of when exactly it was meant to be set.
Keri: Yes – I did read David Flint’s review after we got back, and he alluded to the director’s assertion that the film should exist in a sort of non-time, not easily traceable to any specific era. The director wanted the film to have a timeless quality to it; I just found it disorientating, personally, and also if you want that timelessness then there are more sound ways to go about it.
Ben: As opposed to basically everything being 80s except a clam-shaped kindle. (Heheh, clam.)
Keri: Smacked of hipster. She needed to poke around in her clam (chortle) so she had a ready supply of literary quotes. God forbid she read books for that! And analogue is cool…
Ben: That just seemed an odd choice, as everything else about it belonged to an older era – the square analogue TVs that only seem to show 50s sci-fi, the cinema with a live wurlitzer player. I forget what the cars were like but I suspect they were what would be described as vintage.
Keri: Trying to obfuscate on the era, I’m sure – but it just dislocated the film to an extent.
Ben: The music too seemed almost more 80s than 80s. I mean yes, some films from that era do use some fairly screechy synth scores, but not quite to the extent they are here. In a way It Follows reminded of Nicolas Winding Refn and the Maniac remake, with the use of that kind of soundtrack balanced with slow build up – the difference being that Refn’s films and Maniac have those crescendos of violence that punctuate that quietness. It Follows rarely does that, even when it is violent.
Keri: Yeah, it had an odd effect. John Carpenter’s loudest moments all the time. All part of the retro/unretro thing it had going on.
Ben: But one of the big sticking points for both of us, I think, was the strange attitudes toward sex.
Keri: Absolutely. Sex and sexuality has been used as a prompt for horror for years – but this unseemly? It seemed to be conflating sex with revulsion in a …well, in a way that troubled me. I know you don’t go to horror for your cool PC attitudes to sex, but still.
Ben: It was as though this monster essentially just was sex personified – and evil. See how frequently It took some highly sexualised form – often naked people, generally grotesque.
Keri: The most horrific (and it was effectively horrific, no doubt about it) scene for me was the kitchen scene. Did you read that the same way I did? To me it looked like a traumatised rape victim turned monster. I also thought it was the same girl as the prostitute at the end, but I may be wrong there.
Ben: With her teeth all mangled, clothes torn, pissing herself – yeah, she certainly seemed like a rape victim. Not sure if it was the same woman as one of the prostitutes at the end but they certainly were presented in much the same way – as a figure of revulsion. I guess the question is, are we meant to share in that revulsion, or take it as indicative of Jay’s own sexual anxieties? And I’m really not sure about that one. This is clearly a film that’s screaming out for in-depth Freudian analysis (let’s not forget It appears as her dad near the end) and there are many people far more qualified than me to get into that.
Keri: Hopefully this isn’t one of those films for which the director thinks first of the film academics… See, the way I read the ending, he didn’t sleep with the prostitute, went home and had sex with Jay anyway, and as they walk off together into the sunset, the figure slowly approaching them up the pavement is It… He couldn’t beat his revulsion for the hooker, nor his desire for Jay. And then they really are fucked.
Ben: Again, like the boat scene it was ambiguous – but it didn’t seem like he was slowing the car down. Either way the ending didn’t seem to be saying other than “and so it continues…”
Keri: Yes, agreed with that. After seeming to deliberately conflate sex with STDs – Jay’s almost always absent mother wonders aloud if her daughter ‘caught something’ and Jay herself was peering into her own underwear after the encounter she first had – this is a sign of the times perhaps, of a world where sex is terrifying and harmful. (I could do a joke here about how It kicks someone’s back doors in…)
Ben: Must admit I felt some empathy for the lad. I know many of us had female friends as teenagers who were a bit crazy and we were so anxious to “help” them… I mean, to be in a situation where you might be able to fuck your dream girl AND feel all morally dignified and selfless in doing so, that’s a proper win-win.
Keri: For a few hours maybe!
Ben: Ah, but what a glorious few hours…
Keri: Ha ha!
Ben: Other big win for the lad – he got to accidentally shoot clam girl.
Keri: Ah yes, the possibly unintentional humour surrounding the world’s worst plan…
Ben: Again, this is where just a smidgen more exposition would have helped. They’d already shot the thing in the head and it had got straight back up – why the hell did they think electrocution would be any different?
Keri: Hmm, this is a film where It can pop up anywhere but they assert that getting in a car would get you ‘ahead’ of it somehow. I don’t know.
Ben: Nor do I – and alas, I suspect the writer-director didn’t either. But still, it’s a supernatural entity and as such not subject to the human laws of physics and whatnot, so I guess it’s all cool beans. (Sorry, not sure why i just used the phrase ‘cool beans.’ At least it wasn’t ‘amazeballs.’)
Keri: We’re at risk of just picking holes in the plot, I realise – and your phrases are getting more and more odd. Maybe we should wrap it up here…
Ben: Yeah, fair enough. Your final thoughts?
Keri: Okay, for me, an intriguing set-up with some genuinely creepy early scenes unfortunately collapsed underneath its own weight – not so much because the idea couldn’t be sustained throughout, but I think what pushed me away overall was the odd, unsettling attitudes to sex it held. Even if deliberately using that theme to create horror, it still felt like it was too heartfelt a message in several places.
Ben: Agreed all around. We have dwelled a bit heavily on the negative, and there is in fact a lot to admire about It Follows – it looks and sounds great, it is often quite tense and atmospheric, and the young cast are pretty good all in all – but if someone were to tell us tomorrow that it’s covert propaganda for that whole teen abstinence movement they have in the US, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised. And I’m very surprised more people haven’t taken It Follows to task for it.
It Follows is out now in the UK & Ireland via Icon, and opens in US cinemas on March 13th from Radius-TWC.