(with advance warnings and all). But maybe, just maybe, we just have to watch the movie for what it is: a work of fiction, a fantasy, without thinking about what doesn’t work!
For example, how ever beautiful it looks, leaves or snow falling inside the humongous house’s foyer, through the derelict roof, seems very improbable if the house is still inhabited as it is the case, here. Plus (major spoiler), with all the cash that they brought in killing those ladies, you would think that they would have, at least, put a bit of money aside to repair the roof!!! But it sure adds a supernatural, faerie-like effect to this creepy house, and (spoiler) plays a role in the story, though… a bit of a stretch! I know, I probably would be wearing two wool sweaters, a coat, scarf and mittens, yet the heroine keeps running around in delicate frilly nightgowns. Brrr! Victorian ladies were tough cookies!
One can't help but dismiss the ghosts altogether as they are more gory than scary, though I did like the vapor-like blood still escaping from the wounds. But by the time the movie is over, we are not too sure if we watched a love story or a horror story. OK, it’s both. Got it!
A lot of elements brought up in this movie have no conclusion or reason to be there, others are derailed mid-movie. The red clay is a good example of a metaphor—though well exploited—which does not reach its full potential. Sad. Because, again, the idea and visual of a house literally sinking in red clay, ergo the blood of its past victims, is insanely clever, and also present in the ghosts; those of the ladies killed and buried there (again spoiler) are red. But why the heck would you build a house on top of a mine? Also, why is the heroine interested in ghosts in the first place, beside the fact that she once saw the one, quite horrifying, of her mother (that, to me, meant more to traumatize her than to warn her)? There is a long list of why’s which I will leave to those who want to speculate.
The storyline is predictable, and the dialogue suffers from a bit of mediocrity. They are either evasive or self-explanatory instead of letting the actors play their roles. Show, don’t tell, please! However, the actors were not short of great. Some platitude here and there, maybe character depth is not among the forte of this movie, but it takes a lot from the actors not to be swallowed whole by the grandiosity of the scenery. I really liked Tom Hiddleston, who usually tends to grate on my nerves—his performance as Thor’s half-brother in the movies Thor (2011), and The Avengers (2012), though fantastic, is enough to make me hate him, and that is the purpose! He is a good actor, and again, I couldn't help but want to slap him to reason in this movie, too. So, I guess that he accomplished, once more, the goal to make one wish to kick/kill him. Though his ultimate fate is very sad for he is also a victim, in a sense.
Mia Wasikowska can be annoying, yet, she is young; therefore, innocence and foolishness are a part of her character. Still, she is pictured as a smart girl who wants to be a writer. How quickly does she give up her dreams to follow a stranger to a strange place in the name of “love.” How bizarre her reaction when she starts understanding the scheme behind her union with that stranger! “Oh, I’m going to run away in my light nightgown in the middle of a snow-storm.” Ok, exaggerated! Others seem to be overdoing it, such as Jessica Chastain, and directing, may be a wee problem when subtlety
Mia Wasikowska
44 | Ceres Magazine | Spring 2016