Connect with us

Editorials

Why 1990’s ‘The Witches’ is the Scariest Children’s Horror Film Ever Made

Published

on

Roald Dahl is undoubtedly one of the most influential children’s book authors in history. Dahl, known for his quirky characters and colorful writing style, is responsible for classics like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and James and the Giant Peach. However, Dahl also wrote stories that were dark and sinister – ones that ultimately reflected aspects of the real world that are not typically explored in children’s literature.  

Originally published in 1983, The Witches tells the story of a boy and his grandmother, who discover a plot by the Grand High Witch to destroy all the children in England. The book was inspired by Dahl’s childhood fascination with witches and magic and the grandmother in the book was partially inspired by his own mother. The book is still widely considered to be one of the scariest children’s books ever written, now more than 32 years after its initial publication.

The feature adaptation of the book was optioned by Lorimar Productions and the film was completed in 1989. Warner Brothers eventually bought the rights to the film after Lorimar Productions went bankrupt. It released in the United States on August 24, 1990 and received positive feedback from both critics and fans but performed poorly at the box office, generating a total of only $10,360,553. The film has since garnered cult status on VHS and DVD and has a perfect score on Rotten Tomatoes. The film also has the distinction of being the final one that world-renowned puppeteer Jim Henson, the creator of the Muppets, worked on before his death and also the final film that was completed while Roald Dahl was alive. Both men died in 1990.

The Witches, directed by Nicolas Roeg, an English-born director known primarily for adult-themed films such as The Man Who Fell to Earth and Don’t Look Now, translates Dahl’s book closely while exploring themes of child abduction and death through the eyes of “the boy”, who is given the name of Luke in the film.

The movie opens with Luke’s grandmother (Mai Zetterling) telling him all about witches: They dress in ordinary clothes, have ordinary jobs and live all over the world, led by the Grand High Witch. She details how they plot to kill children and how she herself was once a victim of a witch’s plot, displaying a stump where her pinky finger once was. She continues to describe witches as naturally bald (they wear wigs to look normal), with no toes, and having a purple tinge to their eyes. She also tells the story of her childhood friend Erika, who was abducted by a witch on her way to the market, and trapped within a painting until one day disappearing all together.

The visuals of seeing glimpses of what a witch looks like (which is fully explored later in the film) and the eeriness of seeing Erika trapped in the painting only hint at the true horror of this scenario. It is the idea of being abducted by a complete stranger that Roeg truly coveys with this opening scene. Child abductions have become common in society today and the thought of being taken and never seen again is all too real. Witches may use magic, but the real-life comparison is much worse to contemplate.

Roeg continues to explore the theme of death early on in the film, as we discover that Luke’s parents are killed in a car accident. The tragedy serves the purpose of reminding us that children are not immune to the tragic and somber aspects of life.

To cope with the death of his parents and a recent health issue with his grandmother, Luke and his grandmother take a holiday at a hotel, where all the witches in England are meeting to discuss their sinister plots – this is foreshadowed by an encounter Luke has with a witch who tries to abduct him by enticing him with chocolate and a snake… an unsettling scene to say the least.

It is the witches meeting scene that perhaps gives us the most terrifying visual aspect of the film: We see the Grand High Witch (played perfectly by Angelica Huston) and the rest of the witches in England transform into their true selves, removing their shoes to reveal stumpy toes, scratching their wigs off to reveal scaly, rash-riddled bald heads and removing their gloves to reveal claw-like fingers. The Grand High Witch herself has to go as far as to remove her entire face to reveal the most hideous and disturbing sight this side of Freddy Krueger. Luke is witness to this entire reveal behind a panel to the side of the main platform.

Throughout the meeting, we see the witches picking at their heads, cackling and showing off their yellow rotting teeth and purple eyes as the Grand High Witch scolds her minions and even goes so far as to kill one of them by burning her to death with magic beams from her eyes, simply for disagreeing with her. The witches are cruel to each other and almost salivate at the idea of seeing harm come to any of them. They hang on every word as the Grand High Witch describes how to kill children and are delighted when they discover they will soon witness a child transform into a mouse.

There is also a scene that shows the Grand High Witch trying to blatantly kill a baby with no regard and several scenes involving children and the witches themselves transforming into mice that are visually impressive, yet horrifying and painful to watch at times – although Roeg does inject some humor into these transformations.

Jim Henson and company did a spectacular job of creating a Grand High Witch that is beyond terrifying and still gives me nightmares to this day. This, coupled with Huston’s sinister performance, give a lasting impression of a movie villain that transcends time. The score composed by Stanley Myers also gives the film a creepy vibe throughout.

Nicolas Roeg directed an adaptation that incorporated many aspects of the book (most notably absent was the book’s original ending) and injected it with a visual style that continues to terrify audiences. However, it is the real-life implications of what is possible without the element of magic that is truly terrifying.

The fact that a film that garnered a PG rating could tackle adult themes this well is a testament to its legacy.

Editorials

11 Years Later: The Horrific Cycles of Violence in ‘Only God Forgives’ Starring Ryan Gosling

Published

on

Traditionally, movie theater walkouts are usually associated with the horror genre, with infamous cases ranging from 1973’s The Exorcist (particularly during the crucifix masturbation scene) and even Lars Von Trier’s controversial serial killer memoir, The House That Jack Built.

That being said, there are exceptions to this rule, as some movies manage to terrorize audiences into leaving the theater regardless of genre. One memorable example of this is Nicolas Winding Refn’s 2013 revenge thriller Only God Forgives, a film so brutal and inaccessible that quite a few critics ended up treating it like a snuff film from hell back when it was first released. However, I’ve come to learn that horror fans have a knack for seeing beyond the blood and guts when judging the value of a story, and that’s why I’d like to make a case for Winding’s near-impenetrable experiment as an excellent horror-adjacent experience.

Refn originally came up with the idea for Only God Forgives immediately after completing 2009’s Valhalla Rising and becoming confused by feelings of anger and existential dread during his wife’s second pregnancy. It was during this time that he found himself imagining a literal fistfight with God, with this concept leading him to envision a fairy-tale western set in the far east that would deal with some of the same primal emotions present in his Viking revenge story.

It was actually Ryan Gosling who convinced the director to tackle the more commercially viable Drive first, as he wanted to cement his partnership with the filmmaker in a more traditional movie before tackling a deeply strange project. This would pay off during the production of Only God Forgives, as the filmmaking duo was forced to use their notoriety to scrounge up money at a Thai film festival when local authorities began demanding bribes in order to allow shooting to continue.

In the finished film, Gosling plays Julian, an American ex-pat running a Muay-Thai boxing club alongside his sociopathic brother Billy (Tom Burke). When Billy gets himself killed after sexually assaulting and murdering a teenager, Julian is tasked by his disturbed mother (Kristin Scott Thomas) with tracking down those responsible for the death of her first-born child. What follows is a surreal dive into the seedy underbelly of Bangkok as the cycle of revenge escalates and violence leads to even more violence.


SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

There’s no right or wrong way to engage with art, but there are some films that clearly require more effort from the audience side in order to be effective. And while you can’t blame cinemagoers for just wanting to enjoy some passive entertainment, I think it’s always worth trying to meet a work of art on its own terms before judging it.

Despite being a huge fan of Drive, I avoided Only God Forgives for a long time because of its poor critical reception and excessively esoteric presentation. It was only years later that I gave the flick a chance when a friend of mine described the experience as “David Lynch on cocaine.” It was then that I realized that nearly everything critics had complained about in the film are precisely what made it so interesting.

If you can stomach the deliberate pacing, you’ll likely be fascinated by this stylish nightmare about morally questionable people becoming trapped in a needless cycle of violence and retaliation. Not only is the photography impeccable, turning the rain-slicked streets of Bangkok into a neo-noir playground, but the bizarre characters and performances also help to make this an undeniably memorable movie. And while Gosling deserves praise as the unhinged Julian, I’d argue that Vithaya Pansringarm steals the show here as “The Angel of Vengeance,” even if his untranslated dialogue is likely to be unintelligible for most viewers.

However, I think the lack of subtitles ends up enhancing the mood here (even though some editions of the film ended up including them against the director’s wishes), adding to the feeling that Julian is a stranger in a strange land while also allowing viewers to project their own motivations onto some of the “antagonists.”

And while Only God Forgives is frequently accused of burying its narrative underneath a pile of artsy excess, I think the heart of the film is rather straightforward despite its obtuse presentation. I mean, the moral here is basically “revenge isn’t fun,” which I think is made clear by the horrific use of violence (though we’ll discuss that further in the next section).

To be clear, I’m still not sure whether or not I enjoyed this movie, I just know that I’m glad I watched it.


AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

There are two different kinds of gore effects. One of them is meant to entertain viewers with exaggerated wounds and excessive blood as you admire the craftsmanship behind the filmmaking. The other kind is simply a tool meant to simulate what actually happens when you injure a human body. Like I mentioned before, Only God Forgives isn’t trying to be “fun,” so you can guess what kind gore is in this one…

From realistic maimings to brutal fist fights that feel more painful than thrilling, the “action” label on this flick seems downright questionable when the majority of the experience has you wincing at genuinely scary acts of grisly violence. I mean, the story begins with an unmotivated rampage through the streets of late-night Bangkok and ends with the implication of even more pointless violence, so it’s pretty clear that you’re not really meant to root for an “action hero” here.

I can’t even say that the deaths resemble those from slasher flicks because the movie never attempts to sensationalize these horrific acts, with Refn preferring to depict them as straightforward consequences of violent people going through the motions – which is somehow even scarier than if this had just been yet another hyper-violent revenge movie.

Not only that, but the characters’ overall lack of moral principles makes this story even more disturbing, with the main antagonist being the closest thing to a decent person among the main cast despite also being a brutal vigilante.

Only God Forgives doesn’t care if you like it or not (and actually takes measures to make sure that the viewing experience is often unpleasant), but if you’re willing to step up to this cinematic challenge and engage with the narrative and visuals on their own terms, I think you’ll find an unforgettable nightmare waiting for you on the other side.


There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.

Continue Reading