This film is a modern adaptation of a short story of the same title by the American writer Ambrose Bierce. It is a three-person account of a tragic crime – the murder of a wife and mother. The story is first told by their son, who had left his studies at college to take care of his father. Then the father, whose mind snapped after the crime, gives his account. And finally, the dead mother tells of her murder, but doesn’t know who killed her.
Bierce’s story is set in a much later time period, but short of the language used, there are very few hints of that time period so it is easy to adapt to present day. Also, an added bonus, it is in public domain, so there’s no copyright to worry about. I’m a big fan of making use of public domain works, so long as due respect is paid to the original.
The concept of telling the same story from three perspectives is a clever one, and the filmmaker chose to go about it in a very unique way. He told the story in the conventional way at first, through images and dialogue, but pieces of the son’s account were added in as captions. Then the father’s account was done as a voice-over, and finally the mother shows up, as a ghost, and gives a brief statement in a hauntingly beautiful a cappella song.
This choice is quite creative, and does distinguish the film from the story. The problem, however, is that the movie ends up being rather confusing. I found that at the end of the film I had to read the short story just to get the gist of the movie. Perhaps it’s just a hint of OCD in me, but I think it might be less confusing if each account was done in narrative. It certainly wouldn’t have to be word-for-word from the story – a summation or more modern adaptation would suffice. But I do think that the best account given was that of the father’s. The actor did a wonderful job at portraying the emotion and horror of the story, and this seems like the best and easiest way to tell the whole story without confusing the audience.
Another part I found confusing was the addition of another family who move’s into the house the murder occurred in at the end of the film. They didn’t seem to be related to the main characters, and it seemed as though they had moved in as the mother appeared to the little boy and sang her song. The confusion, however, came when there was a mini-plot developed around these people which started to draw in the audience, but then the film was over and those story threads were left hanging. If one wants to focus on the ghost rather than the individuals they are haunting, best to take a page from the film The Others – the haunted family only shows up briefly at the end of the film.
In keeping with the film’s eerie feeling, the images are shaky handhelds, often in low or harshly shadowed light. There are some nicely-framed shots, especially of the house, that add to the creepiness, but the low light is often too low. Many of the shots are so dark that it’s almost impossible to tell what’s going on, especially in a few scenes where the father and son are walking home, and where the young boy is in his room at night. In the latter, the boy initially has a light turned on, but the scene is still dark and blueish in color, and doesn’t change even when the light is turned off.
It’s difficult to shoot in low light, something that is very important to a horror story like this one. Microfilmmaker Magazine has several articles on lighting tips and tricks and how to shoot day-for-night.
