The Film: Poltergeist
The Principals: Directed by Steven Spielberg, uh, I mean Tobe Hooper. Starring: JoBeth Williams, Craig T Nelson, Heather O’Rourke, Beatrice Straight, Dominique Dunn, Zelda Rubenstein.
The Premise: The Freelings are a typical middle class family living the American dream in a suburban development that dad (Nelson) has played a large role in populating. One night during a thunderstorm, the youngest daughter Carole Anne (O’Rourke) begins hearing voices emanating from the static of the TV set. Soon, the family is plagued with increasingly terrifying paranormal occurrences, culminating with Carole Anne being pulled into her closet and disappearing, only to exist as a non-corporeal voice on the television. The family calls in a team of paranormal researchers, led by the kindly Dr. Lesh (Straight) but they are ill equipped to deal with the increasingly bizarre and dangerous attacks by the restless spirits. Dr. Lesh calls on the help of Tangina (Rubenstein) a diminutive psychic who confronts the spiritual vortex and sends mom (Williams) into the nether realm to rescue Carole Anne. Once mother and daughter are back in the real world and safe, Tangina declares the house “clean”. The family prepares to move from their longtime residence, but not before spending one more night in the house. The spirits return with a vengeance and the family narrowly escapes with their lives, but not before discovering the horrible secret as to what lies beneath the idyllic façade of the development itself.
Is it Good?: It’s Poltergeist for Christ’s sake, of course it’s good. At this point it is probably safe to say that Poltergeist is a definitive haunted house tale, certainly for a generation and certainly as far as the 80’s are concerned. Along with the previous year’s Raiders of the Lost Ark and E.T. it cemented Spielberg’s status as a stortytelling wunderkind (despite the film being credited to Tobe Hooper as director) and it has continued to scare generations of viewers. Who can forget the scary clown scene, or the dude ripping his face off, or the swimming pool full of corpses? Poltergeist is a seminal film that has been a template for ghost movies ever since, and recently has spawned antecedents in the popular Paranormal Activity films and James Wan’s excellent near remake Insidious. Quite simply, the legacy of this film cannot be oversold.
The production and performances are top notch across the board. This is classic Spielberg, and his touch is felt in every frame of the film, which makes it all the more absurd that some people will actually insist that Tobe Hooper directed the lion’s share of the movie. There is just simply no evidence of Hooper the artist here, unless you count the shocking gore of the face ripping scene or perhaps some of the tension and scares. But hell, Spielberg is no stranger to tension and scares, especially at that point in his career. The mother daughter relationship between Williams and O’Rourke really anchors the film, and upon revisiting it I found it to be one of the more enjoyable elements. I really felt the love between these two. Everyone else is great too, and with the meta-knowledge of the “Poltergeist curse” it makes viewing a little bittersweet. Dominique Dunn is a great presence with what little screentime she has, and it’s a real shame she was taken from us before she could have a career (Dunne was murdered by a jealous ex boyfriend soon after the film’s release). And little Heather O’Rourke…man, what a tragedy. O’Rourke would die of pneumonia during the filming of Poltergeist III a few years later while she was still a child. Go into the light, Carole Anne.
But you know all of these things already. I am not here just to praise Poltergeist – you can find that anywhere. I am here to damn it! Or at least take it to task a little. Because when I sat down to watch it this most recent time, I tried to do so without the lens of nostalgia, which we all know is a difficult thing to do. And while doing this in no way really diminished my respect and love for the film, I could see some flaws and odd choices that I think at least warrant some discussion. So for the sake of a good argument, let’s take a look at some of the problems I had with Poltergeist.
First of all, the movie is ludicrous. Ludicrous! There is a basic, no-holds-barred approach to reality here that strains credulity at every turn. I mean, I get it, it’s a ghost story, we’re dealing with the paranormal. Things are going to happen that would not happen in our reality. But Poltergeist might as well be taking place in the world of Harry Potter. This isn’t a haunting, it’s a friggin’ magical realm bleeding into our reality! Things fly around in a swirling vortex making humorous noises, giant trees get sucked up into tornadoes and disappear, ethereal monsters pop out and shriek at you – I mean what the hell are the rules here?! Simply put – there are no rules. The ghosts of Poltergeist can do whatever they want, whenever they want. Which begs the question, if these things are so powerful, why don’t they just take Carole Anne and whoever else they desire and be done with it? Why are they even mucking around with the stupid Freelings? Why don’t they just implode the entire development? There’s something to be said for not knowing all the answers, but the more you think about Poltergeist the more questions arise that really don’t have any good answers. The movie is inexplicable and absurd in a way that just couldn’t be done in today’s more reality-based cinematic environment. I weep for the poor saps that have been trying to remake this for the last few years. Good luck with that, dudes.
This disregard for reason extends to the plot itself. The most egregious example is when after all this crazy crap happens, the Freelings decide to just chill out in the house for one more night! Are you kidding me!? Their daughter has recently been sucked into a spirit nether realm in her closet and you let her and her brother crash in the very same room as said closet/portal to oblivion!? All non-reality based movies demand certain “gimme” moments, but the one in Poltergeist really tests the limits of what you are willing to let go. The audience I saw it with collectively groaned when Craig T Nelson and JoBeth Williams make the call to stick around one more night. It’s hard to get too mad at this plot development because it leads to one of the coolest and scary climaxes in horror movie history, but still, c’mon. They could have found a way to get there without such a lazy contrivance. You’re better than that, Spielberg. He must have been working on E.T. the day those pages landed on his desk.
There aren’t many more flaws in Poltetrgeist, but I do feel that the film grinds to a halt in the scene where Dr. Lesh and Mama Freeling exchange some booze and Lesh gives her theories as to the nature of the spiritual realm. It’s a nicely staged and well acted scene but it doesn’t really help to clarify much of what is going on, and it drags the momentum down. Tangina does a much better job at exposition when she shows up a few scenes later. But neither scene really clarifies what’s going on besides that the big scary uber-spirit wants Carole Anne for some reason. The film mucks up any chance it has to properly explain anything – at one point it is said that poltergeist activity differs from traditional hauntings because it is focused on people and not locations, but the reason the spirits are there is because of the bodies being buried under the development – so which is it? Poltergeist wants to have it both ways, and it’s a point that sort of niggles at you upon repeated viewings.
My final issue is with Dominique Dunne’s character. Simply put, as the older teenage daughter Dunne has no role to play here and in fact fucks off at a friend’s house for most of the movie. Why even have the character in the movie if that’s what you’re going to do with her? Dunne has a great presence in the few scenes she has, so it’s a real shame the film never figures out what to do with her. I would think having ghosts muck with the mind of a teenage girl could open up some real possibilities for scares. Sadly it doesn’t happen, and Dunne’s death guaranteed that it wouldn’t happen in any of the wildly inferior sequels either. A real missed opportunity.
In the end, none of my quibbles really matter because despite its flaws Poltergeist works. It’s the textbook definition of a ‘thrill ride’ of a horror film, or more accurately a spookhouse ride. It should be a must own for horror fans, fans of ghost movies and fans of good movies in general. It should be a perennial on your DVD or BluRay player each and every Halloween season.
Random Anecdotes: The reason Spielberg couldn’t direct this himself was because it was contracted that E.T. (which may as well take place in the same suburban sprawl) be his only directorial credit that year. Hence the hiring of Tobe Hooper as the proxy director, though no one will go on record admitting this.
Cinematic Soulmates: Paranormal Activity, Insidious, E.T., Poltergeist II & III and countless others.
Sorry for the crappy version of the trailer, it’s all YouTube had. Just see the movie already.
10 comments
“Paranormal Activity”… really? PA was the ultimate ‘slow burn’ haunted house movie, whereas the ghostly happenings start flying fast and thick in this one. I tried to watch this again recently and I’m sad to say I couldn’t sit through it… it’s just way too family-oriented and “cutesy.” I honestly wouldn’t even call it a horror film. Which is kind of puzzling, really, since both Hooper (‘Texas Chainsaw,’ et al) and Spielberg (Jaws, Duel) obviously know how to do horror and suspense. Not sure what went wrong with this one…
A guy rips off his own face in the bathroom mirror. It’s a horror movie. And yes, Paranormal Activity is heavily influenced by this film, at least thematically.
Great write-up for a great movie! But I’m going to defend it on a few fronts:
-You’re dead on about the “one more night” thing. To me that’s the only real flaw. They try to address it a bit (they weren’t planning on spending the whole night, I don’t think) but it is pretty surprising that they’d stick around at all. Then again, Tangina did claim that the house was clean, and if you can’t trust a vertically challenged apple-doll with a southern accent who can you trust?
-I think that Dr. Lesh and Diane scene is one of those connective-tissue moments that makes the characters seem like real (and intelligent) people dealing with extraordinary (or ludicrous) circumstances. I thought that scene was a drag when I was younger, but love it now, not the least of reasons being that Beatrice Straight is frickin amazing to watch.
-I think the lack of rules and puzzling tactics of the spirits is explained away in the fact that they are hurt, angry and confused and adds to the movie. You don’t know how they will manifest next. A tree? A clown? Throwing pantied JoBeth against the ceiling (okay, that’s not too confusing). The polar opposite of this anarchic approach would be a bunch of “rules” and explanations. That leads to expectations and predictability. And the next thing youi know you got midichlorians everywhere.
– I agree about Dunne having not much to do. I may be giving the film too much credit… the difference in age between her and Robbie vs. Robbie and Carol Anne made me think that she was accidental (it’s been a while since I saw it, but they may mention this), which, combined with the pot-smoking tells a bit about how the Freelings are lost hippies trying to force themselves to conform to a Suburban dogma. That implied part of the backstory does add to the movie in my opinion, though I’m not smart enough right now to explain why I think that.
But what the hell do I know? LIke I said, this was a great and thoughtful M.O.D. I would only have added that this is one of the scariest movies ever made DESPITE the fact that there is a zero body count. ZERO! (not counting the [SPOILER!] parakeet [SPOILER!])
All good points J David. I accept that the film does make an effort to correct some of these logic holes, and I agree that didactic approach to the material would have been infinitely worse. It just feels kind of clumsy in hindsight, something you don’t expect from Spielberg.
It wasn’t your cup of tea. That’s cool. You have strong opinions about Paranormal Activity… that’s cool too, I guess. But nothing in the world is worth lowering yourself to typing “…really?” It’s okay, I used to do it too, until someone brought it to my attention.
When it comes to the wild and ridiculousness of the hauntings, it does seem interesting to view it from the perspective of when this was made. In a world saturated with camera’s, videos, the internet and “real life” ghost hunters, it is hard to imagine that people would buy this as actually scary, but to view it through the eyes of a generation whose view of the world was shaped by what limited content was on tv, books, and general word of mouth, it seems more plausible as to why it was so scary when it came out. That being said, the movie is still pretty damn effective and I would bet this still has the ability to scare the shit out of younger audiences.
Trivia for you: Poltergeist WAS shot in the same neighborhood as E.T., concurrently, actually. Speilberg wanted Hooper close so he could step in if the director and his well known coke habit became a problem. They even drive by Elliot’s house in one shot, if memory serves.
There was a reference in the movie to Carol Anne being born in the house, the first child born in the neighborhood. That might explain the paranormal interest in her.
Dunne’s character is something like 16 and it’s flat out stated that Williams is 32 in the movie. There’s been some sinning involved in the family apparently. I think that’s part of the subtext of the movie, that there’s plenty of secrets and sins in suburbia despite the pleasant exterior.
Poltergeist is a horror movie because it horrifies. The film boasts a dozen scenes of affecting terror, like the tree, like the clown, like the pool, like the face. I’m curious to know TonyB79’s definition of horror, or anyone’s, for that matter. I personally think that Poltergeist is a horror film for horror buffs, as opposed to one for gore-hounds (though it has that too). That middle-America ate it up is just icing on the cake.
Consider for the definition of horror: Paul Thomas Anderson considers “There Will Be Blood” his attempt at horror (http://www.avclub.com/articles/paul-thomas-anderson,2120/). Can a horror film be a horror film if only its maker thinks it’s a horror movie?
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.