Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films,
2016
Images from the Internet
In the House of Flies
Edited and directed by Gabriel
Carrer
Parade Deck Films / Bleeding Apple /
Black Fawn Films / Latefox Pictures
Black Fawn Films / Latefox Pictures
89
minutes, 2012 / 2014
www.blackfawndistribution.com
In
my youth, I was a huge fan of comix like Eerie
and Creepy (Archie Goodwin was my
fave). As much as I enjoyed them, I was also a fan of their brain-damaged
cousins, the stranger ones that were the low-run rip-offs that reprinted
no-name author and artist EC Comics-like tales of murder and mayhem from the
1950s or so. There was one story I remember where this “scientist” kept young
couples in love in cages, starving them and meting out just bits of food, and
seeing how long it would take for them to turn on each other. I was reminded of
that particular tale with this one.
This
is also a good example of how one film
can be influenced by another, and yet still shine on its own. The premise
smacks of Iron Doors (2010; sans the
sci-fi element) and the moralizing of Saw
(2004) without the brain cancer reasoning, mixed with the television game shows
“Deal or No Deal” or “Fear Factor,” but it remains raw and draws the viewer
into a ring of hell.
It’s
1998, and a young pre-engaged couple are having fun at Niagara Falls (the
Canadian side, of course; if you’ve been there, you know what I mean). They are
kidnapped and awaken in a plain basement with a tiny window, a bunch of locked
suitcases, and someone giving them directions by voice only on a phone that
cannot dial (you heard me) out. I kept expecting someone to say, “Let’s play a
game” (actually, at almost the hour point, it is indeed stated).
Over
the following days, the two captors make their presence known: Mr. Arm (Ry
Barrett) and The Voice (almost instantly recognizable to me as Henry Rollins) are
both treating them like dogs (“Apologize”; “No more damage”) mixed with non-religious
sermonizing memes (“Envy creates silent enemies”; “You should have taken care
of him/her”) on how to be a better person (to Rise Above? Sorry…). While slowly
starving them, with just small amounts of food in suitcases that they get to
open every few days, the tasks assigned them get harder and harder. No, I won’t
reveal any of them, but it is pretty obvious he is watching and listening in to
their conversations.
 |
| Ryan Kotack |
The
guy is Stephen (Ryan Kotack), who is a mild looking dude, but full of masculinist
behaviours, subtly ordering his mate around and treating her poorly at times
(in my opinion; general consensus probably would not see it); he also reacts
violently against his “host” in ways that would not help in the big picture.
Heather (Lindsey Smith) is placed in the position of subservient to both Steven
and The Voice. Smith comes across as a strong woman in a role that makes her
the object of both verbal and physical abuse, more so than Steven. Honestly, it
pissed me off.
It is
made clear that Heather and Stephen are not the first couple chosen for this
conundrum (“You’re worse than the others” The Voice tells Heather), so surely then
he must know that people cannot survive without water for more than
three-to-five days. In the meanwhile, there would be renal shutdown, illness,
cramps, hallucinations, etc., few of which are present here after denied water
for four days straight, at one point.
The big
question about what is happening to our lovebirds is a big why. Is it sadism? Were they hired to take care of them? It sure
seemed like they were targeted from the opening scene. Personally, I wasn’t
satisfied with the answer, but don’t worry, again, I won’t discuss it and give
anything away. Not seeing the bad guys is a nice choice even though it leads
more to confusion than conclusion, but I’m guessing that is part of the point, eh? Oh, did I mention it is a Canadian
film, shot it Guelph, Ontario?
 |
| Lindsey Smith |
Despite
the whining by me, the film has a really good look, both set and camera-wise,
and the lighting and sound are nicely handled, as well. While the editing is
also interestingly paced, at the same time, there might have been a bit more
terseness if the film was a bit shorter. Okay, philosophically, I believe I understand
the thought behind it, since long-held shots add to the tension in a world that
has gotten accustomed to bam-bam editing. By the halfway point, however, my
tension had turned a bit to tedium on some level, and I really wanted to skip a bit, but this reviewer don’t play that. Unfortunately,
it wasn’t a tension of the action, but one of ennui as I kept saying, “Oh, c’mon,
this is gender normative even for 1988.”
Despite
the phone calls, the film is essentially Heather and Stephen, and both actors
do quite fine work. Considering it’s the first (but hardly the last) credit on
their IMDB profile, that’s saying a lot. I look forward to seeing them both
again in the future.
The
first extra is a 40-minute Making Of called “A Fly on the Wall.” It is
interesting in parts, but it’s really self-indulgent to expect the viewer to
watch that much detail about production. The second is 7-1/2 minutes of the
film’s premiere in Spain of all places, at the Bilbao Fantasy Film Festival,
that is more a travelogue than anything. Then there is the trailer, some
stills, six whatever deleted scenes that average just over a minute apiece, and
an English captions option (for which I’m always grateful). The DVD box says there
is also a commentary track, but I didn’t find it, quite honestly.
I want
to warn couples, do not see this film as a “date,” unless you are accustomed to
watching genre types, because I can almost guarantee that a fight will ensue. “What
would you do in this situation? Would
you hit me? Would you make me hit you?” You see where I’m going, I hope.
Lastly,
I should add that this film has been shown at a number of festivals, and has
been highly praised by other reviewers.
No comments:
Post a Comment