this house is on fire, and the flame is gonna burn you, you

Look at me, missing posts left and right and showing a general disregard for the September Extravaganza that I promised to provide. So why don’t I increase the sadness and just give you a movie review this time. And not even a well-written one at that.

The Amityville Horror (1979)

They just remade this one last year, but I think it’s ridiculous to draw any comparisons between the original and the remake. That’s not an issue of quality, or even nostalgia (although you could make arguments for both I won’t do that here). What it is a matter of is both the cultural awareness of the Amityville story AND developments in the horror film genre over the last twenty-five years. Amityville ‘79 is not a slasher film; in fact, it predates the beginning of the slasher film explosion in 1980 with Friday the 13th (although both Black Christmas and Halloween are often cited as slasher films, neither is representative of the bulk of slashers which were released in the 1980’s). It is rather a take on the haunted house story, of which Hollywood has been making films for years. More importantly, it is also the spawn of The Exorcist (1974), the seminal demonic possession film (Rosemary’s Baby, while predating The Exorcist, fails to ever appear to me as anything but a satire, not horror). Amityville ‘79, based on the “non-fiction” book of the same name was a publishing phenomenon. I say “non-fiction” because the book was quoted that way, the “true” story of one family’s struggle against the demonic forces which had taken over their home and which drove them out in a month’s time, leaving their possessions behind as they fled in terror. Of course the problem is the majority of the book is in fact made up; a fact admitted by the writer and the family (the Lutzes). There was a true backstory to the house; in 1974, Ronnie DeFeo Jr. shot and killed six members of his family in the house that the Lutzes would later move into. DeFeo would later claim he heard “voices” in the house telling him to do it, which is not surprisingly a favoured strategy by defendants to explain their behaviour. Either way, the elements were there: a “haunted” house, marred by the tragedy of violent death. The Lutzes told their story and the book was published as a true account, although even at that time the Lutzes admitted many of the events described in the book were embellished or misleading. After the success of the book, American International Pictures decided it would make a very scary film. Hoping to capitalize on the success of The Exorcist five years earlier, the rejected Exorcist score was in fact used for Amityville. That, however, is where the comparisons should end. In watching Amityville ‘79 what is most obvious is how the film is willing to use religious and demonic elements but at the same time refuse to provide any sort of explanation, even along religious lines. There is talk in the film of the house being located on an Indian burial ground (which interestingly enough is a major plot element in the remake), and although we see priests debating whether “evil” truly does inhabit the house, it feels like nothing more than colouring. This film realizes its own limitations; although the book itself is a sham, the film cannot add more flavour without ceasing to be “based on the book”. From the start you’ve got a handicapped movie. In trying to stay true to the source material (which is in fact made-up), the movie has to play it safe and keep the evil unknown and unconquerable. There is no slasher film to be found here then. The closest we get is to see George Lutz (played by an increasingly moody and unshaven James Brolin) threaten the children or complain about how “damn cold it is in here”. Between shivering in the house and chopping wood out back, George is nothing more than an angry stepfather, perhaps unconsciously regretting the choice he has made in marrying a woman with three children and purchasing a house which is financially beyond his means. Stephen King once described the entire story (and I’m paraphrasing here) as a “horror story about having a mortgage”, and he’s pretty much right. While the film does somewhat succeed in establishing an unsettling mood, the choppiness of the editing and the stupidity of much of the story refuses to be ignored. As a cultural phenomenon the film did have some success, although this owes more to the efforts of the book rather than the movie. Just say “Amityville” and people will know what you are talking about. But they aren’t recognizing the acting talents of Margot Kidder are they? It is more the house itself that becomes recognized. Shoot a movie in which we just watch the house sit there, those window-like eyes staring at us for ninety minutes, and you’ve got something. The remake in 2005 upped the gore and scares but adds nothing to the story which needed to be there. In fact, the addition of ridiculous elements such as a sprint across the rooftop to get away from George (in the rain, no less!) demonstrates the un-necessity (is that a word?) of the house itself in this newest version. Although the hype surrounding the remake was the “based on a true story” element, you aren’t fooling anyone. It is merely a matter of convience that the story chosen was the story of the Amityville house. A generation watching this film knows very little of the cultural impact of the original story. With a series of ridicuous sequels in the 80’s, even the house itself loses its presence. When you start making films that have nothing to do with the house or Amityville at all, then you are using a name brand to promote a totally different product. In spite of itself I think the original story gained a foothold in the cultural landscape precisely because it did so very little. A house can just sit there, it doesn’t need a machete or finger razors to hunt its victims. They come to it. Ultimately,it is the victims that construct the story of their own demise I suppose. Because a house sure as hell can’t do it.