Wolfen (1981), dir. Michael Wadleigh
**
While watching Wolfen the thought that kept running through my head was,
‘my, how dated this film is!’ This
was probably because there really isn’t much going on for most it, and so you
find yourself with little else to do but to make note of the little things:
peoples’ hairstyles, the rotten shape New York City was in at that time, the
film’s musical score, and so on.
Of course any film that is aged more than a decade could feel dated, but
notice how we never say that about a great film. That being said, Wolfen is not a great film.
Directed
by Michael Wadeigh, of Woodstock documentary fame, Wolfen is about a New York homicide detective, played by
Albert Finney, who is investigating a strange group of murders that appears to
have been done by a wild animal of some sort. I had occasioned to read a few reviews of film written
around the time of its release, all of which were positive, and was genuinely
surprised after having viewed it myself.
The general consensus was that Wolfen is an intelligently made horror film. If you placed Wolfen in the context of the time in which it was released,
that’s probably a very fair statement, given that in the early ‘80s Hollywood
was inundated with misogynist mad slasher films, most of which were deplorably
bad. As intelligent as it may be, Wolfen simply isn’t scary—not by today’s standards, or by
the standards of thirty years ago.
This is regrettable, because by and large I find the horror genre to
have been far more effective in achieving overall scariness thirty years ago
than it is capable of doing today.
This is more of an aside, but I find that today’s horror films are far
too over-produced, rendering them unable to create any sense of realism that
allows the audience to relate to what it’s seeing. In the horror genre, without realism, there’s no scaring
anyone. Wolfen, given when it was produced, has the advantage
there; the cinematography is done entirely without effect (with the exception
to the first-person camera shots from the killers’ perspectives), and the
actors look like real, everyday people—they are not glossy models like the
actors who populate today’s horror films.
Wolfen unfortunately has
terrible pacing. The story unfolds
very slowly, with all of the murders being seen from the killers’ eyes, who
incidentally are not human; therefore some very antiquated optical effects are
used to illustrate this, along with sped-up tracking camera shots. It all amounts to a very dizzying
effect that creates very little impact, if any at all.
Eighty
minutes go by before we get our first glimpse of the murderous beasts
responsible. This I feel was the
film’s largest blunder. With such
a significant delay the film needs to be padded with a few interesting plot
points to compensate, but there aren’t any really. There is a brief love affair between Albert Finney’s
character and the female lead, but it is wholly uninspired and leads
nowhere. And Edward James Olmos is
introduced as a possible suspect, but is eliminated as such with one of the
most utterly humiliating scenes I can recollect ever having seen an actor
endure in film. It involves him
entirely disrobing by the shore of what may be the East River in New York and
having a manic werewolf moment. It’s
laughably bad, and it wouldn’t surprise me if that scene continues to haunt him
to this day.
There
is a final showdown toward the end of the film that is somewhat riveting. But it really only serves to illustrate
how much better the film could have been had a scene such as that been
introduced earlier on.
I’m
relatively new to the horror genre, but have seen a fair amount of both notable
and obscure films in the past few years.
If it were up to me I wouldn’t categorize Wolfen in the horror genre at all. It’s a thriller at best, but a vapid
one. If you’re looking for a good
scare, then let me recommend one I saw about a month ago. I embarrassed that it eluded me for so
long, but it’s John Carpenter’s 1978 film, Halloween. It
scared the pants off me.
No comments:
Post a Comment