Lying to herself 'cause her liquor's top shelf

I used to hate Lana Del Rey. Hated. Face creeped me out. Music was boring. I couldn't stand the story of her rise to fame. It was all so constructed, such slap in the face to authentic music.

But then I couldn't stop listening to Video Games. It haunted me. Then I got the album and couldn't stop listening to that, either. And the more I look at her the more I want to be her.

I read an interview with her in the October issue of Vogue Australia and I can't help but find her incredibly engaging. Talking about film music, Nabokov and her wild past, I can't decide if Lana Del Rey is a construct or if this woman is a genuine artist. But I do know I want her style.

I've been watching her videos on Youtube this morning and I came across one that hit me like a tonne of bricks. They're all amazing, even her supposedly home-made ones, but one felt like an emotional punch to the guts.

It's this one:



Summertime Sadness is so beautiful and affecting and so reminiscent of Sofia Coppola's The Virgin Suicides. I'm not sure why this one is my favourite, and I don't know why it upset me so, but I love it.

And now I love Lana Del Fucking Rey.

Hysteria (Tanya Wexler, 2011)

If Art’s primary function is to provide comment on contemporary society and ensure the tradition of passing down historical knowledge via storytelling, then it seems necessary that the cinema engage in presenting major historical developments that lead to societal or institutional change via an entertaining narrative. Recent examples would include A Flash of Genius (Marc Abraham, 2008), The Social Network (David Fincher, 2010), and The Artist (Michel Hazanavicius, 2011).

Hysteria, directed by Tanya Wexler and starring Hugh Dancy, Jonathan Pryce, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Felicity Jones, and Rupert Everett, is a worthy addition. Dancy is Mortimer Granville, a young doctor fascinated by the scientific developments taking place in London in 1880. It’s a pity that he seems to be the only one. After losing many jobs due to his crackpot ideas about ‘germ theory,’ he accepts a job with Dr Robert Dalrymple (Pryce), an expert in the diagnosis and treatment of Hysteria, a malady experienced exclusively by women. When Dr Granville proves extremely good at, erm, ‘handling,’ his patients, Dr Dalrymple promises future ownership of the practice, and Dalrymple’s youngest daughter Emily (Jones). Meanwhile, his elder daughter Charlotte (Gyllenhaal) causes much disruption to Granville’s life and eventually his heart.

This film is an entertaining and extremely amusing interpretation of the invention of the vibrator in the treatment of women with ‘hysteria,’ an impairment thought to be brought on by an ‘overactive uterus.’ But gender politics rule this film: here, women are thought by men to be mentally unstable because of their very genitalia. Our protagonist, Granville, is forced (often literally) to examine women and their various qualities. When given the choice between the ‘ideal woman’ in the form of the genteel Emily and the ‘hysterical woman’ in the form of the volatile Charlotte, he comes to see that both of these representations of women in Victorian England are fictional. Both women are intelligent, strong and resourceful and never regard one another suspiciously in the competition for Granville’s affections. It’s relatively rare to find a film in which both women are equally suitable for the male suitor – yet the conventions of the romantic comedy means the audience will know who Granville will end up with quite early in the piece.


Both women, and the women who visit Dr Dalrymple, seem more than ready for a personal revolution that leads to a societal one. Granville’s invention essentially becomes the catalyst for this change to occur. Hysteria’s message is that when men put women’s pleasure first, great things can happen. Amen.

Hysteria is now screening at Tower Cinemas Newcastle.

Where Do We Go Now?

Year: 2011

Director: Nadine Labaki

How will we cope? How will we cope? We're women. Now please stop asking stupid questions.

- Made in Dagenham (Nigel Cole, 2010)

The Melodrama or ‘Woman’s Film’ is identified as such by its focus on women and the domestic sphere. Often concerning lost or unrequited love, the Melodrama is essentially about women in love.

Et maintenant, on va où (Where Do We Go Now?) is the story of a small village in Lebanon where outlying areas have been ravaged by violence between Christian and Muslim communities. The village itself is half Christian and half Muslim, and has seen more than its fair share of violence.

The women of the village try their best to keep the men civil, but when tensions threaten to erupt they take matters further by employing a group of Ukrainian dancers to ‘get stuck’ in the village. Eager to please these newcomers, the men turn to mush. But how long will this scheme work?

This is a woman’s film in the very best sense. These are incredibly strong women willing to do whatever it takes for love. Here this love is a love for their husbands, brothers, sons, and fathers, and it is as fun to watch as it is frustrating as these men push the limits of these women’s love as far as they can go.

It’s the mark of a good film that can tell the story of a particular group of people in a way that is still relevant and relatable for a global audience and Labaki has crafted an exquisite film. These women are entirely relatable, not just for other women but for men as well. It’s an engaging story told in a heartfelt way – by turns hilarious and devastating, and never boring. It’s hard to find any fault at all; even the unexpected musical numbers are a delight. Reportedly earning a five-minute standing ovation at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival, a crowd renowned for being hard to impress, Where Do We Go Now? is a beautiful exploration of gender, religion and love and well worth a viewing.

Where Do We Go Now? opens Thursday June 28 at Tower Cinema Newcastle on June 25.

Anton Chekhov's The Duel

Year: 2010
Director: Dover Koshashvili


Based on Chekhov’s 1891 Novella, Anton Chekhov’s The Duel is the story of Laevsky (Adam Scott), an idle civil servant who spends his days drinking, sleeping and playing cards, much to the annoyance of colleague Von Koren (Tobias Menzies). Laevsky is a man who has tired of his mistress Nadya (Fiona Glascott) and wishes to leave her. He has received important news regarding her husband but fears to tell her, worried it will seal his fate with her forever.

It shares similarities with two other European novels also written in the late 1800s: The Kill by Emil Zola, and Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray. All three works share a similar concern with questions of marriage, social impropriety and the idle rich’s destructive pursuit of pleasure. Unlike those other novels, however, in which those who commit social transgressions are punished, in The Duel it seems all that’s needed is a jolt or catalyst to make the characters see the error of their ways. But does it lead to a positive new perspective or does it merely allow for the acceptance of their fate?

Koshashvili’s adaptation is a very self-assured work, taking full advantage of Paul Sarossy’s stunning cinematography. The seaside town of Caucasus is brought to life in their capable hands and they make excellent use of the screen space, filling it without cluttering it, drawing our eye to important details but never forcing it. Andrew Scott is excellent as the wayward Laevsky. He plays Laevsky’s mounting hysteria at the thought of marrying Nadya perfectly, never resorting to cliché.

This is a slow burn and the pacing may frustrate some. Yet it perfectly reflects the characters’ inner turmoil - as their frustration grows, so too does the film lead to its climax. Here the duel doesn’t simply refer to a physical battle – it is a war between our conflicting desires: love and lust; civilisation and violence; responsibility and pleasure. Which side wins and for how long is left for us to question.

Anton Chekhov’s The Duel is now showing at Tower Cinemas Newcastle.

Raindrops on Roses...

I love superhero movies. I’m not an avid reader of the graphic novels, the pages these superheroes are often plucked from, but I find myself loving these films. Not all are good, in fact some are woeful (The Green Lantern…), but the ones that do it best…well, they have a special place in my heart.

I’m writing a television series at the moment tentatively titled Extra Ordinary. It’s about two twenty-somethings who are entering their quarter life crisis with the additional burden of having superhero powers. So now they have to struggle with career and relationship woes and the after-work commitment being in a superhero league requires. I’ve written drafts for the first three episodes and have started on the fourth. I want it to be made in Australia, because I think we need some more superheroes in our lives. And in the superhero film, the events that lead to the super powers are often a catalyst for the person to do the right thing and save the world. What I want to ask is, ‘what if it isn’t?’ I mean, if getting super powers can’t motivate you to change your job and strive for a career you’re passionate about, what can?

So what do I love most about superhero movies? I’ll tell you.

1. Superheroes can do cool shit
This one seems really obvious. But for that love of the cinema that revels in pure spectacle, seeing cool shit performed by cool people is just plain cool. They can stop trains with their bare hands, fly, beat people up, and have amazing mental powers. And some can even shoot laser beams from their eyes. Awesome sauce.

2. Superheroes remind us of that eternal struggle to be better than who we are
Most people are pretty good. They’re courteous, respectful and aware of what needs to be done for society to be good. But sometimes apathy kicks in and we need a reminder that we are relatively nice guys. Superhero movies remind us that superheroes are usually just like us – except that reminder usually takes the form of some catastrophic accident.

3. Superhero movies can be about superhero movies
We love superheroes and sometimes think the world would run a helluva lot smoother with them in the real world. But it makes us wonder about what someone living in this reality and not the reality of the cinema would be like if they tried to be a superhero. Would they be crazy? Would they be applauded? Or would they be a magnet for psychos? Or would they turn into a psycho? Superhero movies that explore these ideas are so interesting because they explore the elements of the superhero subgenre and examine contemporary society’s ideas on what it means to be heroic all at the same time.

4. Superhero movies can provide social commentary
Some superheroes aren’t made – they’re born with their powers and rather than making them special, it makes them a target for persecution. It becomes a burden they must hide lest they be rounded up and experimented on or worse, executed. These superheroes become an extreme metaphor for society and its tendency to regard difference with mistrust. The best superhero movies that deal with these deeper issues often present these issues as a moral dilemma; do you claim control of this difference and use it to crush your enemy? Or do you use it to help win detractors over with compassion, understanding and the ability to rescue them from some pretty crazy shit?

5. It’s easy to develop massive crushes on superheroes
This one too seems pretty obvious. None of these catastrophes that give superheroes their powers ever makes them unattractive (those who do become villains. Naturally), does it? And they’re usually funny, cool, brave, and capable of saving a damsel (male or female). And of course when they’ve got it (super powers, that is), they more often than not flaunt it.

6. ‘Powers’ is complicated to define
Before, superpowers meant your standard powers – something that changed the physical make-up of an ordinary person and allowed them to become extraordinary. But then the term became more complex. Suddenly emotional trauma, usually coupled with extreme intelligence and access to resources, could be a power in itself, whereas previously this was strictly villainous territory. Now heroes can be capable of more complicated feelings and motivation for their actions.

My favourite superhero films and how they fit into this list:

Iron Man (Jon Favreau, 2008) – 1,2, 5, and 6
Iron Man 2 (Jon Favreau, 2010) – 1,5,6
Batman Begins (Christopher Nolan, 2005) – 1,2,5,6
The Avengers (Joss Whedon, 2012) – 1,2,5,6
Misfits (Howard Overman, 2009 - ) – 1,2,3,4
Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997 – 2003) – 1,2,4,5
X-Men (Bryan Singer, 2000) – 1,2,4,5
X-Men: First Class (Matthew Vaughn, 2011) – 1,2,4,5
Heroes (Tim Kring, 2006-2010) – 1,2,4,5
Griff the Invisible (Leon Ford, 2010) – 2,3,4
Kick-Ass (Matthew Vaughn, 2010) – 1,2,3,4,5

The Zombie World Around Us

1. Cardio
2. Double tap
3. Beware of bathrooms
4. Seatbelts
6. Cast iron skillet
7. Travel light
8. Get a kickass partner
12. Bounty paper towels
15. Bowling Ball
17. Don't be a hero (later, 'Be a Hero')
18. Limber up
21. Avoid strip clubs
22. When in doubt, know your way out
29. The buddy system
31. Check the back seat
32. Enjoy the little things


We know most of the rules of Zombieland. We also know the old rules of the zombie canon, e.g. you must destroy the head or the brain, and if you’re bitten, you’re dead. We also know recent films have sought to break some or all of those rules. But what are the rules of the Zombie Universe, the universally acknowledged truths that will make for the perfect zombie film?


1. The cause of the Zombie outbreak has to reflect contemporary fears
In the midst of the Cold War, the zombie outbreak came from space. In recent years fear of stem cell research and medical experimentation on animals has resulted in a global outbreak. In the modern age, our fear of infection (swine flu, avian flu, any kind of flu) informs the cause of the post-apocalyptic nightmare. The idea of zombies is ridiculous, but that it could happen from something relatively plausible such as an epidemic, or pandemic, or space junk falling to Earth makes for some uncomfortable viewing. And that’s what we’re striving for.


2. Individual survivors must band together to face the zombie hordes
In scenarios like a zombie apocalypse, it’s the most unlikely that survive. Recluses too afraid to leave the house, gun-toting rednecks bent on vengeance, geeks used to avoiding a beating at lunch every day, kids from broken homes used to managing on their own, coma patients who miss the apocalypse. This isn’t always a good fit when several people think they should be in charge and one or two don’t let anyone be in charge of them. We at home know that their best chance of survival is sticking together, but it takes them a while to realise. And usually one of them ends up being killed by someone in the group. Group tension is usually required somewhere in the middle, when the tension brought about by the survivors’ immediate need to survive wears off a little.


3. Zombies shouldn’t run
In recent years zombies have been working on their personal fitness and are now capable of sprinting toward their victims. But this seems counter to the deeper fears zombies play on, namely, Death. Slow, inevitable, ever-present death. You can avoid it for a while, but gradually it will creep up on you. And I’m not alone in this thinking. In 2008, Simon Pegg lamented the end of the slow-moving zombie in his article, ‘The Dead and the Quick,’. That they now move faster does serve a purpose, however, which leads to the next rule.


4. Zombies need to be scary all the time
This appears to be a no-brainer, pardon the pun. But after the initial shock of seeing the Undead and discovering they can be killed, people may start to think they can survive this apocalypse business. So you need to remind people that zombies are still terrifying reminders of a painful death. But how? Usually a group attack will do the trick, but this will become boring. Another trick is revealing the band of survivors’ current hideout is unsafe. One of the best ways to remind people that zombies are terrifying, however, is having their loved ones transformed into the living dead. There’s nothing more gruesome than being eaten by your own family.


5. Guns
You need ‘em. But you should also have a shovel, club, or crossbow on hand. Or even a toaster oven or vinyl collection. We’re normally nervous about guns, and zombie films often suggest that they do come in handy sometimes. Gun control is an issue in itself, but the primary goal of this element of the zombie film is to illustrate that the rules change when society breaks down and what we’re scared to admit to ourselves is that the first thing we’ll probably reach for in the event of a global zombie outbreak is some form of weapon.


The idea of genre is that it’s a way of telling a story in a particular way and using certain codes and conventions to address particular themes and affect the audience in a certain way. It’s an easily recognisable structure that informs the audience what it’s about before they see it so that they can decide whether or not they’ll enjoy it. The zombie genre is technically a sub-genre of the horror genre and as such, it’s a way in which filmmakers can address the fears that are held in contemporary society, and a chance for the audience to reflect on them and examine them.


If the aim is to remind an audience of the things they fear most, then the zombie film (like other all horror films) has to consistently scare the hell out of its audience. And how? By following the above rules. It’s all about visual storytelling and creating the tension that allows for a visceral reaction to the themes addressed within the film or television series.


The following films (and one television series) follow these rules relatively consistently and are thus my pick as the best of the subgenre that I’ve seen:


Night of the Living Dead (George A. Romero, 1968)

Dawn of the Dead (George A. Romero, 1978)

28 Days Later (Danny Boyle, 2002)

Shaun of the Dead (Edgar Wright, 2004)

The Walking Dead (Frank Darabont, 2010 - )


Though I love it dearly, I have left Zombieland (Rubin Fleischer, 2009) off this list purely because I don’t think it follows my rules perfectly and because it’s not scary. It totally wins everything else, because of Bill Murray’s cameo.

Advice for teenage girls from someone whose name means 'Princess'

I attended a midnight screening of The Hunger Games and I must say I was disappointed with the turnout. I could get a ticket just hours before the screening. The cinema wasn’t even full. And I couldn’t help thinking that if it had been a Twilight screening it would have been sold out months ago. This makes me feel sick.

I think the Twilight franchise is evil and needs to be wiped out. Every print of every film, every DVD and Blu-Ray copy and especially every single copy of every single print of every book piled on a massive bonfire with an effigy of Bella Swan to set it all up in flames. I’m also fully aware this sounds hypocritical considering I’ve read all the books and watched all of the films so far. I’m contributing to its continued success. But I feel as a film lover it’s my duty to sacrifice my beliefs and watch/read these awful examples of feminine oppression at its most insidious in order to warn people. Often, people criticising a film or book have never even read or seen it and if so, how can they critically analyse the material and make an informed judgement about it? But yes, I did get sucked into the books and I did think the first film was not so bad. I mean, c’mon: directed by Catherine Hardwicke and it has Anna Kendricks in it. It wasn’t all bad.

But Twilight is bad. It’s the worst kind of message for teenage girls, because the ideology is so insidious that it was women participating in this idea that it’s beautiful and romantic to do nothing else with your life other than be a wife. And as a feminist I firmly believe women in the Women’s Liberation movement worked damn hard so that women could choose what they wanted to do with their own lives and bodies and if they wanted to be a wife and mother, well, heck, as long as that was their own choice then get on it. What makes me really angry about this series is that this choice doesn’t feel like a woman’s own choice. Bella Swan is supposed to be smart; she’s in an advanced Chemistry class when she meets Edward and she clearly loves classic literature. She’s also initially wary of marriage, because her parents split up when she was young. But after Edward won’t sleep with her unless she marries him, she somehow decides she wants to throw all of her hopes and dreams away (although, does she really have any?) so that she can be Edward’s wife for eternity. You can go to college AND get married now, ladies.

And the men she has the choice of are both horrible examples of mankind. One is moody, controlling, withholding, and threatens violence when Bella gets too close to him, or threatens suicide if she were to leave him. That’s a domestic abuse case, not a love story. Jacob, meanwhile, becomes almost a sexual predator, refusing to leave Bella alone despite her insistence that she is uninterested. Not only that, he too threatens violence when he disagrees with her choice to first marry Edward, then to want to sleep with him. He also threatens to kill Edward continually. When she is pregnant (How?!?!?) and sick, the two men plan Bella’s future without even consulting her. Why on Earth would any right-thinking woman choose men like that in their life? Yet these books and films encourage us to choose between them. Hmm, let’s see; an abuser or a sexual predator? Oh, I can totally understand Bella’s predicament now!
There are maybe three decent men in the whole series and none of them are really rewarded for this effort. Sure, one of them is Bella’s own father, but this is surely the one time when it’s ok to want to marry someone more like your father. But even then, in the books when Bella moves in with her father she starts taking care of him and he stops looking after himself, leaving it all to her.

The message of this book, thinly-veiled behind these mystical elements of vampires and werewolves (the tamest you will ever see), is that the most beautiful thing a woman can be is a wife and mother. Yes, those are admirable if that’s what you’re into, but you shouldn’t be telling women that’s all they are capable of. Bull. Fucking. Shit. What really makes me sick is that this series is written by a woman. And it’s been read, discussed and loved by women. I’ve overheard middle-aged women discussing whether they are Team Edward or Team Jacob.

The other thing that really upsets me is the way in which the books draw you into relating to Bella. The first-person narration is always an effective device for empathising and connecting with a character. But when the character is average all over, it’s easy to see how girls will feel like Bella’s story is their story. She’s also the most passive protagonist in modern literature. In the fourth book she hardly even moves. No wonder the film was doomed to be the most boring piece of shit in history when you have that to work with, and even if Kristen Stewart was the world’s greatest actress (FYI: she’s not), how would such a strongly-opinionated young women ever be able to understand this character, let alone inject any sympathy or even life into her.

This brings me back to The Hunger Games. There are some ever so slightly similar themes at work in Suzanne Collins’ novel. It’s the story of a young woman told in first-person narration and the most important thing to her is protecting her family. She also becomes involved in a love triangle. But here is where the similarities end. Thank fuck. Because Katniss Everdeen is nothing like Bella Swan. She is strong and she is active. From the first page of The Hunger Games, Katniss is actively keeping her family together. Not only that, but she is willing to fight dirty to do this. And her love triangle involves her with two boys who are smart and cunning themselves. Her childhood friend Gale is a skilled hunter like Katniss and openly criticises the Capital. Peeta too is talented and strong and he knows how to manipulate people in order to survive. He’s honest about his feelings for Katniss and tells her so, but not without affecting her personal safety. Instead, he uses it to help save her life.

But perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself. For those unfamiliar with the books or film adaptation released in Australia today, the story is this. In a futuristic wasteland we can only assume is the former United States of America, the Capital city of Panem rules the remainder of the country, now divided into 12 districts. After years of war, rebellions, uprising and the annihilation of District 13, the Capital now keeps the rest of the country in line in several brutal ways. The most brutal is the annual televised known as The Hunger Games. On the Reaping Day each year, a girl and boy aged 12-18 is picked at random to compete. For wealthy districts it’s an honour they train for their whole lives. For poorer districts it is a death sentence. It’s not just your run-of-the-mill athletic competition. They wish. The Hunger Games is a televised battle royale in which 24 young boys and girls must kill one another to win. Only one will come out. It’s both punishment and a sign of good faith, according to the Capital. Punishment for the Rebellion and a sign of the Capital’s continued generosity in letting at least one kid live every year. The sickest part is that much like the film Series 7: The Contenders, it’s a reality television series and every move the contestants or Tributes make is broadcast to the entire country. Bets are placed on Tributes, and people recount their favourite moments and talk about where they were when a particular Tribute was killed.

Now in its 74th year, Katniss and her sister Primrose are both potential tributes, Prim having just turned 12. Katniss is not worried about Prim as she knows her name is only in the ballot once. In exchange for rations, families can choose to put their child’s name in the ballot multiple times and Gale’s name is in there 43 times. Katniss herself has multiple entries. But, because this is a drama and things have to happen, y’all, the unthinkable does happen and Katniss hears the name Primrose Everdeen called as the girl Tribute for District 12. To save her sister she does what no poor district ever does; she volunteers as a Tribute in her sister’s place. The rules now seem to have changed and Katniss is viewed as a credible contestant. When baker’s son Peeta Mellark is chosen as the male tribute, it seems that District 12 may actually have a chance.

Already there is more excitement and more serious political themes at play here than in Twilight. Having only read the first book in the series, the second being Catching Fire and the third, Mockingjay, I think this book and subsequent film gives teenage girls a much better role model to aspire to. Katniss is almost always in control of her own destiny. She is at first disbelieving that she has a chance, but the thought of her sister being alone spurs her on. She knows she’s excellent with a bow and arrow and proves herself. She’s also unwilling to change her personality until it becomes crucial to her survival. When Peeta uses his crush on her as a survival tactic for the two of them, she plays along. There are no discussions in which Peeta and Gale decide which one should have Katniss; she chooses. In the first book and film, she is unsure she wants either of them.

One girl dressed up as Katniss at the screening and though it’s probably a little lame, I really hope that more girls dress up as Katniss in the future.

Better the Devil you know

The House of the Devil (2009)

Directed by: Ti West
Written by: Ti West
Starring: Jocelin Donahue, Greta Gerwig, Tom Noonan, Mary Woronov

Warning: Spoilers
Second warning: Spoilers won’t make you less scared if you watch the film after reading this.

As the film’s opening titles suggest, the 1980s were filled with ‘Satanic panic,’ regarding demonic possession and the idea of the Devil’s presence in the real world. According to the film, the events that transpire in the next 98 minutes are based on actual events.

But don’t be fooled: these credits, rather than a warning of a chilling recreation of history, are merely the start of an expertly handled period horror film. More than a pastiche, parody, homage, or satire, The House of the Devil is a film that may as well have been buried in someone’s garage until three years ago. According to West himself, the film is set in 1983, but the real feat is that it looks like it was made in 1983.

The plot is this: college sophomore Samantha (Donahue) needs money to pay rent for her new apartment. She takes on a babysitting job in an isolated part of town on the night of a full lunar eclipse. When she arrives at the house accompanied by her best friend Megan (Gerwig), her employer Mr Ulman reveals that it’s not a babysitting job at all but actually involves looking after his elderly mother.-in-law. After demanding a higher wage, Samantha agrees to stay. Megan leaves with a promise to return later to pick her up. And that’s when shit gets cray.

The film was shot using 16mm film, a popular film stock used in the 1980s and uses filming techniques used in 1980s horror films, zooming on actors and using freeze-frames and 1970s/1980s opening credits and end credits. The set design and costume is spot-on, down to the Coke cups at the pizzeria to Samantha’s Sony Walkman (purchased on Ebay). The themes too are in keeping with horror films of the time, utilising mystical elements seen in slashers like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the Full Moon) and themes of demonic possession and evil houses, seen in films like The Exorcist and The Amityville Horror.

West is meticulous in creating a film that perfectly reflects what may be considered the Golden Age of horror, but what is also admirable is the contemporary flair given to the story and a Generation-Y understanding that while these films are classic blueprints for the films that would follow, they don’t necessarily still deliver the chills they once did.

Rather than going straight for gore and horror, West instead sets up a story filled with a growing sense of unease, creating a film that goes for a sustained sense of terror. While it's a classic Hitchcockian move, it seems a relatively recent trend in horror.

The initial story is one many audience goers would easily sympathise with. Samantha’s college dorm-mate is a nightmare and she needs to get out. When she finds a nice apartment, she realises she will struggle financially to remain there. That this leads her to the basement of a family of Satan-worshipping psychos feels more realistic and more organic than other horror films and especially ones made in the 1970s and 1980s. We don’t want her to stay but some of us will understand why. Megan, who has a rich father, cannot understand why Samantha chooses to stay and so is upset with her. But what she doesn’t understand is that desperation for money, one that is not about being able to afford a designer dress, but one that is about keeping a roof above your head. Not only that, but Samantha is more sensitive than Megan, and feels pity for Mr Ulman and his predicament. He’s a sympathetic character despite giving nothing away and giving Samantha no real assurance that he is trustworthy.

This idea is also explored in Fincher’s version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. When serial killer Martin Vanger traps journalist Mikael Blomkvist in his basement he explains that the reason he is there is not because Vanger overpowered him but because he stayed in the house despite his better judgement so as not to offend Vanger or put him offside, remarking that this is how he lured his other victims. So too in The House of the Devil does Samantha stay despite her better judgement. The idea of leaving and feeling safe is not nearly as satisfying as taking $400 home with her after one night’s work.

That the most horrifying events happen so late in the film makes it more shocking as well, particularly as you’ve come to identify with the characters and actually want them to survive, an element often absent from slasher films of the 1980s. When Megan’s head is blown away by a stranger who turns out to be the son of the crazy Ulmans, it’s shocking not only because of the suddenness of the murder but because we’ve gotten to know her. Where thrillers often set up likeable characters to create tension when they are threatened, often horror films rely merely on the shock of a character being suddenly and violently murdered and here West strikes a balance between shocking violence and character development.

The concept of an evil house, or killer’s lair being found in the basement or attic of a house is definitely not new and that’s the point; in the 1970s and 1980s, when the rules were still being written, heroines frequently stayed in a creepy house too long, or ventured down to a dank basement to find her worst nightmares realised. That the house itself is not particularly frightening adds to the horror later, when Samantha discovers the people she is working for are not the real owners of the house. But before that discovery is an extended period in which Samantha explores the home alone.

Knowing that her friend has been brutally murdered, the audience watches her with a rising sense of unease, waiting for a hand to grab her, or an unlocked door to lead to the horrors that we are now convinced await her from somewhere within. That this does not happen until the end of the film makes it all the more disturbing. The film’s final sequence in which Samantha is impregnated with the spawn of Satan is made all the more horrific for the initial building of tension; the façade of domestic drama or subtle thriller falls away to reveal the real film underneath. This is what everyone was afraid was going on in basements around the US in the 1980s: Satanic cults abusing young women in some psychotic belief that they were bringing about Hell on Earth and the return of their master. Samantha’s attack symbolises that the rules have now changed.

With Samantha’s escape comes more violence, more gore and more blood. That she systematically annihilates her attackers feels cheap, almost too easy. She hasn’t really proven her worth as a strong heroine. But it’s not until the film’s final moments that you realise it has been pointless. The terror initially brought about from wondering how she will survive is now a feeling of terror precisely because she survives, as the final scene reveals she is pregnant with the spawn of Satan. The psychotic Ulmans have won after all. This recalls the final chilling moments of Rosemary’s Baby. We're hopeful that she will survive and the child will be destroyed. But instead, we see Rosemary’s maternal instincts kick in and we know it is too late for her. The film's final shot of Samantha recovering from her self-inflicted gunshot wound to head, having just heard that she and her unborn child are safe, is just as chilling.

Ti West’s thorough knowledge of the horror genre and its historical development means that he has not only created a brilliantly realised reflexive genre piece but also a chilling horror film that perfectly recreates the terror those iconic horror films would have produced in their heyday.