More stories

  • in

    ‘The Ring’ at 20: Millennial Horror That’s Still Infecting Movies Today

    The film that kicked off the West’s J-horror fascination was made in the shadow of 9/11. Its influence can be seen in “Smile,” “It Follows” and more.If you remember anything about Gore Verbinski’s cursed-videotape chiller, “The Ring,” released 20 years ago Tuesday, it’s probably the whispered threat: seven days.Or maybe it’s the eyes of a creepy little girl, peering out from behind a curtain of stringy black hair; or the uncanny images — a flaming-red tree, dead horses scattered along a seashore, a finger pushed through a rusty nail — that made up the film-within-the-film. In “The Ring,” any unlucky soul who watches this bizarre videotape receives a menacing phone call as soon as it cuts to static, and in a week they’re kaput at the hands of a soggy ghoul who crawls out of a TV.“The Ring,” based on the wildly successful Japanese novel by Koji Suzuki as well as the 1998 film adaptation by Hideo Nakata, doesn’t rely on a high body count, or much in the form of blood and guts, for scares. Yet for a generation of horror-lovers, it taps into a familiar feeling of ambient anxiety and inexplicable unease that remains omnipresent to this day.In fact, it’s surprisingly restrained, unfolding like a waking dream shot through with dread. Set in Seattle and doused in eerie teals and grays, the movie follows Rachel (Naomi Watts), a journalist and single mother tasked with uncovering the truth behind the sudden death of her teenage niece, Katie (Amber Tamblyn), who is found with her face terrifyingly warped, frozen in anguish like “The Scream.” When Katie’s classmates suggest a haunted video is to blame, Rachel tracks it down and watches it, beginning the countdown to her own demise. Through Rachel’s detective work, the story of Samara, that creepy girl, a kind of vengeful spirit, comes to light, but these revelations do nothing to break the curse; only showing the tape to another person can liberate the condemned.Audiences at the time proved eager to see the tape for themselves. “The Ring” went on to become a sleeper hit, ultimately taking in nearly $130 million domestically and kicking off a string of American remakes of Japanese horror movies, a trend that is among the most distinct and representative of Hollywood in the aughts. Along with the 1999 hits “The Sixth Sense” and “The Blair Witch Project,” the popularity of “The Ring” represented a shift from the fascination with teen-slasher fare that had dominated the previous three decades.Naomi Watts played a journalist who tracks down the deadly video. At the time, she was a relative unknown.Merrick Morton/DreamWorks PicturesWhen Verbinski was approached by DreamWorks with the idea of remaking the Japanese film, he was in the middle of reading “The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle,” the surreal epic novel by Haruki Murakami. By the end of the ’90s, Japanese pop culture had made major inroads in the United States — think of the rise of Nintendo and the Pokémon craze. No wonder Hollywood executives pounced on the opportunity to rework “Ring,” then the highest-grossing horror film ever released in Japan, for an American audience. “Ring” was one of the key properties credited with unleashing J-horror, the Western term for the ensuing cycle of Japanese horror films characterized, in part, by a connection between the demons and spirits of traditional folklore and the technologies of the new millennium.“The original is beautifully abstract and moody, but American audiences demand some sort of resolution or straight path,” Verbinski said in an interview. “They’re motivated to follow bread crumbs, so we created a more linear story. The advantage is, we’re able to mess with those expectations.”Other remakes of J-horror sensations, like “The Grudge” (2004) and “Dark Waters” (2005), followed, but none achieved comparable success or the same level of cultural impact.“The Ring” might even be considered a classic of millennial horror. Elder millennials born in the ’80s were teenagers then, while younger ones turned to video stores or hung on the words of older siblings who had lived to tell the tale. Not that kids at the time would have been prohibited from entering the theater. “The Ring” was rated PG-13, though its portentous atmosphere, abrupt sonic shifts from loud to quiet, and sinister Hans Zimmer score make it perhaps more effectively spooky than other films that abound in spectacular violence.The enthusiasm around J-horror remakes may have been short-lived, but the core of what made “The Ring” so frightening in 2002 — and what made the novel and original film such disturbing portraits of societal collapse in ’90s Japan — is the transferable nature of the death sentence, which makes even the victims complicit. Several American horror movies since “The Ring” have employed a similar formula to critical acclaim and commercially fruitful results. In David Robert Mitchell’s 2015 “It Follows,” a teenager maneuvers to offload her supernatural STD on a sexual partner, who, upon consummation, takes on the spell and is relentlessly followed by a murderous undead entity. “Smile,” the current box-office heavyweight, tracks even closer to “The Ring” by taking the perspective of a cursed woman desperate to find a solution before time — she’s told at most a week — runs out and a spirit that feeds off trauma manipulates her into committing an extravagantly bloody suicide. There’s only one way out for this curse, too: Kill someone else.As in “The Ring,” “Smile” featured a woman (Sosie Bacon) hunting down a curse. Paramount PicturesLast October, Cristina Cacioppo, the director of programming for the Nitehawk Cinema in Brooklyn, screened “The Ring” as part of a series dedicated to horror remakes of the 2000s. “There can sometimes be a stigma around remakes,” she said. With “The Ring,” she recalled, “I was very dismissive of it when it came out and thought it’d be this Hollywood version that stripped away everything that made the original interesting. When I finally watched it, I realized it’s very much its own thing — it’s good!”She also credits the performance by Naomi Watts with elevating the film. At the time, she was a relative unknown who had just broken out in David Lynch’s “Mulholland Drive.”And, of course, there’s the videotape, which almost resembles an experimental short. Early in the film, we watch it in its entirety through Rachel’s eyes, and, depending on your mood, it might play like a silly student-film provocation: Initially, the killer tape is treated like a high school urban legend. Not being able to tell if the threat is legitimate or not is part of what makes the videotape so indelible.“We wanted it to be haunting but also slightly dismissible,” Verbinski told me. “We degraded the images until it felt like it was shot on a Super 8 camera by an amateur. At the same time, things from the film start appearing as Rachel moves through the real world. Kind of like having a dream where you go to a bar and get a pack of matches, but then you wake up and see the matches on your table.”For Verbinski, the film’s appeal is closely tied to the zeitgeist. Though it was released in 2002, the director and his crew were in preproduction when the events of 9/11 took place, forcing them to move the shoot from the East Coast to the Pacific Northwest.“There’s a random element to the film, a loss of control and disruption of balance that makes it work,” he said. “There’s no moral explanation or sense of one person deserving it over another. It’s scary when a belief system collapses, it leaves you in this existential free-fall.” The film is obviously not a direct result of 9/11, but it makes “palpable a similar crisis,” he added, “that whatever meaning you create from the videotape, whatever progress or discovery you think you’re making, none of that will make you whole.”Maybe that’s why “The Ring” — even if its legacy includes some truly horrendous sequels and the deflating, if affectionate, parody “Scary Movie 3” — lingers in the mind, especially for those of us who remember its now distant-seeming world of landlines and cassette players.“2002 was the beginning of that feeling of loss and meaning slipping away,” Verbinski said. “There was a real sense of before and after, but now everything is blurred and we’re swimming in that crisis daily, alone, but still looking for something to share.” More

  • in

    ‘Goodnight Mommy’ and More: For the Love (and Hate) of Horror Remakes

    With the American update of the Austrian horror film “Goodnight Mommy” now streaming, a horror fan discusses why remakes for him are a must-see.The 2015 Austrian psychological horror film, “Goodnight Mommy,” is an eerie little gem. I went into the recent remake with apprehension but determined to keep an open mind, primarily because of Naomi Watts. I remembered feeling similarly territorial over my bootleg VHS copy of the 1998 film “Ringu” before seeing Watts in its nightmarish 2002 American remake “The Ring.” Michael Haneke’s 2008 retelling of his own 1998 home invasion film “Funny Games” was just as terrifying the second time around with Watts in the lead.As the end credits rolled on the new “Goodnight Mommy,” I decided the mournful 1970s tune, “Look What They’ve Done to My Song, Ma,” would have made a better title. No fault of Watts; my issues with Matt Sobel’s film stem from a cloying emphasis on the redemptive power of motherhood, a theme extremely at odds with the original, and how this version bafflingly seems determined to spoil its own twist ending from the start.But I don’t regret watching the movie. I’m passionate about horror; if offered a choice between seeing a critically adored drama or a poorly reviewed slasher, I’ll choose the latter almost every time. There’s only so much time in a week, and as I’m constantly reminded, a masked man could behead me at any moment.Susanne Wuest and Lukas Schwarz in the 2015 Austrian film “Goodnight Mommy,” directed by Veronika Franz and Severin Fiala.RadiusHorror remakes surged in the 2000s. “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre,” “Friday the 13th,” “The Hills Have Eyes” and other seminal 1970s and ’80s classics were dusted off, recast and rewritten. In their podcast “Aughtsterion,” the hosts Sam Wineman and Jordan Crucchiola gleefully cover horror from this era in-depth and point out that many of these remakes were crueler than their originals, both in kills and dialogue, and reflected the decade’s cultural sleaze — everything from TMZ to American Apparel ads to “Girls Gone Wild.”The rise of torture porn films, like the “Saw” and “Hostel” franchises, during the same period is now widely seen as an allegoric reaction to Sept. 11 and the American-led invasion in Iraq, but a grim failure at attempting this theme arrived with a remake of the 1976 film “The Omen,” 30 years after the original played to its decade’s fascination with religion and cults. The rehash had no interest in disguising its intent and showed footage of the burning World Trade Center to signal the impending end of days. Stephen Holden’s Times review noted that particular choice “sharpens this remake’s sour tang of exploitation.”And yet, even after reading that review, I was at the theater later that night. I needed to witness the mess myself, a sort of cinematic rubbernecking, so I could talk about it with authority among friends. I’ll even admit that I couldn’t resist the studio’s marketing gimmick of releasing the film on June 6, 2006.Dakota Johnson in Luca Guadagnino’s remake of “Suspiria.”Amazon StudiosIt’s thrilling when my devotion to the genre pays off and a remake works, like Luca Guadagnino’s 2018 take on “Suspiria.” Rather than try to replicate Dario Argento’s 1977 gorgeous, color-soaked tale of a witchy dance academy, Guadagnino went with a muted palette, allowing his character-centric story to shine. Here were real women operating a coven, not just the minions of a villainous asthmatic ghoul.On the flip side of classy, but equally cherished in my eyes, is “Piranha 3D” (2010), which transformed a tame “Jaws” rip-off from 1978 into an over-the-top judgment on sordid topless reality TV content. The director Alexandre Aja served up phallus chomping, a Sapphic underwater ballet set to “The Flower Duet” from Léo Delibes’s opera “Lakmé,” even a cameo by Richard Dreyfuss, a.k.a. Hooper from “Jaws.”I find as much value in a horror remake with a large budget for entrails as I do in one that’s a moody meditation on the transformative power of dance. I treasure this genre because it allows me to define horror however I want.Jerry O’Connell in “Piranha 3D,” directed by Alexandre Aja.Gene Page/Dimension FilmsOf course I don’t speak for every horror fan. Despite #horrorcommunity being a popular Instagram and Twitter hashtag, the better term for us is horror crowd, as explained by Phil Nobile Jr., the editor in chief of Fangoria magazine.“Horror — as an interest, passion, or profession — has fandoms and sub-fandoms; it has cliques; it has little fiefdoms,” Nobile Jr. wrote in a newsletter last April. “A community is an idea (or maybe an ideal), a crowd is a mathematical reality.” He made this distinction while ruminating on homophobia and political differences among fans, but the phrasing is comprehensive. Put simply, our opinions are all over the place, and that’s often on display when a remake gets released.The new “Goodnight Mommy” left me cold instead of giving me chills, and I’m OK with that. A horror remake sparks discourse, lights up social media, fuels podcasts, spurs think pieces. When this happens, for a brief and lovely moment, I soak it all in and naïvely do feel part of a horror community before slipping back into the crowd. More