Great Film: What Lies Beneath
Ebert and Roeper are sorely misguided with their dislike for this film...
It is interesting to revisit the archived reviews available at
EbertandRoeper.tv and listen
to their comments regarding this film and their perception of its ability to
frighten, its
technical construction, and its characters' success in aiding the narrative.
Each of the
respective critics dislike What Lies Beneath in both its construction
(camerawork and
plot development) and its effectiveness in creating suspense. While this
movie is
enjoyable regardless of whether it was viewed on opening weekend or whether
it is the
third or fourth viewing on television, it is more understandable that Ebert
and Roeper
had some issues with the film during its theatrical release (whether they
have altered
their views upon its DVD release, I do not know). The true beauty of this
film is the
manner in which it holds up over time and how it DOES splice all of the
great filmmaking
techniques together into a nice homage to classic suspense
films.
The plot, including the incremental revelations of paranormal activities
within the newly
gone-off-to-college childless home of Pfeiffer and Ford, is not really what
drives this
movie. Ebert and Roeper complained in their critiques that there are too
many red
herrings that serve no purpose but to mislead the audience; thus, when they
are
exposed as mere ruses, much of their existence within the film is
superfluous. But that
is the fun of the movie. That is the fun of many classic suspense films,
even numerous
Hitchcock films. There are situations that are added because they lend a
hand in the
build-up fear, not the characters' fears, but the viewers' fears. In
Psycho, the image of
the cop's face outside Leigh's car window, masked by sunglasses,
expressionless, and
looming over the camera is scary to viewers. Yes it fits into the script
because she is
frightened as a result of her thievery. But ultimately, it is the viewers'
own fear of cops'
intimidation tactics that makes the scene effective. In What Lies Beneath,
hearing cries
of distress through a fence that offers no real visibility of the cause of
such pangs is
very similar. Who cares if it is mainly a device to build
uneasiness?
To be fair, Ebert and Roeper really seemed more irritated that too much of
the plot and
its elements of mystery were revealed in the marketing of the film . The
true cause of
the haunting that Pfeiffer's characters is terrorized by was apparently
revealed rather
blatantly in the trailers and television spots used to promote the film.
Therefore, Ebert
and Roeper seemed more angry that they were not even given the chance to
enjoy the
unfolding of the plot and the subsequent suspense. However, it is only know
that their
argument seems to be more fallacious in its use of logic. I understand that
each person
has a reaction to a film based on the uniqueness of their own likes,
dislikes, and
inclinations to genre, but there is an established set of framing
techniques, camera
movements, and lighting designs that reliably cause an emotional reaction by
the
viewers. It is very hard to find Ebert and Roeper's critiques impervious to
default when
this film does not tend to lose much of its emotional effects upon repeat
viewings.
To elaborate, the unknown ghost, its motivation, and its history and
relevance to Claire
(Pfieffer) are plot points for the basic construction of a three act
narrative; and, a three
act narrative is a contrivance proved to be effective for the assimilation
of information
by means of tapping into the inherent way humans use logic to invent
concepts from
raw data (if a, then b, and if b, then c: therefore if a, then c).
Subsequently, the artist
now has a template on which to attach the expressions of humanity that
create the
emotional impact of the film (or play, etc.). In a sense, the structure of
What Lies
Beneath is very simple and only attempts to create a large enough template
to succeed
in allowing the viewer to follow the basic arc of the narrative. The
strength of the film
exists in the the technical construction and how precisely orchestrated it
is to get the
most emotional impact from the various moments in the film. Watching the
film for the
third or fourth time, the plot isn't new or exciting, the characters aren't
complex, yet the
film is still suspenseful. It is not the unfolding of the story creating
all the suspense;
rather, it is Zemeckis's camera use, his choices for sound and light design,
and his
ability to precisely coordinate a myriad of elements that enables the film
to work as a
whole. This is not a film that would survive on its script. This is not a
film that would
survive by its stars alone. This film succeeds because of the choices in
direction.
Finally, to counter Ebert and Roeper's unsound critiques of this film,
attention should be
paid to their mention of films that they found parallel to What Lies
Beneath, whether
thematic or visually reminiscent in some way. Roeper states that the movie
has too
many cliches and that the ending is reminiscent of Carrie, Cape Fear, and
even Gone
with the Wind. On the other side of the aisle, Ebert compares the film to
Ghostbusters
because of moments he found comedic that were not intended to be so
(although I don't
find any scene unintentionally comedic). The odd aspect of their critiques
is the
absence of any mention of the numerous shots Zemeckis directly lifted from
several of
Welles' films and a litany of shot selections that pay homage to Hitchcock.
While this
movie isn't groundbreaking, it is a great exercise in technique that results
in a fun,
effective film.
Cast
- Warren Feur played by James Remar
- Dr. Norman Spencer played by Harrison Ford
- Elena played by Wendy Crewson
- Dr. Drayton played by Joe Morton
- Claire Spencer played by Michelle Pfeiffer
- Madison Elizabeth Frank played by Amber Valletta
- Mary Feur played by Miranda Otto
