Scan barcode
A review by notwellread
Hereditary by Ari Aster
5.0
I’ve never witnessed a film be so incredibly scary and so incredibly sad at the same time, yet the two qualities never seem to struggle against one another; the family’s genuine grief is not cheapened by the demonic or supernatural elements, nor do the grief or the mental illness themes dampen the horror and violence which they produce. The only slight issue for me is the unanswered question of whether Charlie was ‘really’ Paimon the whole time or whether she was also the family’s daughter — I think the loss is more genuine if there was a girl actually in there, even if the director has said that Paimon was there since her birth and the girl was ‘displaced’ (what this means exactly is not entirely clear to me).
I am fascinated by the fact that this was not originally a horror film, and would love to see the original draft of a pure family drama. I wonder if the ‘hereditary’ factor in the form of mental illness was originally meant to be genuine, and what sort of form it would have taken (I dislike it when media labels characters as simply ‘crazy’ without further explanation, as it tends to be lazy writing and is not a realistic take on what mental illness is actually like). I also wonder how the relationship between Annie and Ellen would change if Ellen’s behaviour was more outside her control (i.e. if she was really mentally ill and not in deliberate conflict with Annie for the sake of her objectives).
I enjoyed the Greek tragedy fatalist aspect the most: that the family, like Annie’s miniatures, had no real control over what happened and were entirely manipulated from the outside. The conflation of the ‘real’ house and the miniature opens and closes the film, making it clear that they were always subject to that role. However, on the question of setting, I’m still not sure why the treehouse was so significant. I understand that it’s a demonic chapel, but I’m not sure why this space in particular was singled out? And what was the significance of the northwest? I’m sure some of these questions are intentionally left unanswered, but I suppose it provides further illustration to the cult’s beliefs and how particular everything had to be.
As you read the script, it really underlines how much of the shock and horror is crammed towards the end: I think the polarisation around this film may come down to an attention span issue. So many of the most traumatic and memorable scenes are contained in the last few moments before the very end. As a result, I would also like more on the ‘endgame’ of the cult: we see them go to such great lengths to have Paimon manifest in Peter’s body, but it’s not clear what the actual purpose of this is (was he not more powerful after the séance anyway?). A lot of horror films seem to end inconclusively. I suppose the culmination of chaos and lack of control or logic (at least for the family as subjects) as themes means that the ending must be left open. In the end, no amount of rationalisation or puzzling out works, and we have to accept that there’s no reason for demonic entries to operate on a human understanding of logic.
I am fascinated by the fact that this was not originally a horror film, and would love to see the original draft of a pure family drama. I wonder if the ‘hereditary’ factor in the form of mental illness was originally meant to be genuine, and what sort of form it would have taken (I dislike it when media labels characters as simply ‘crazy’ without further explanation, as it tends to be lazy writing and is not a realistic take on what mental illness is actually like). I also wonder how the relationship between Annie and Ellen would change if Ellen’s behaviour was more outside her control (i.e. if she was really mentally ill and not in deliberate conflict with Annie for the sake of her objectives).
I enjoyed the Greek tragedy fatalist aspect the most: that the family, like Annie’s miniatures, had no real control over what happened and were entirely manipulated from the outside. The conflation of the ‘real’ house and the miniature opens and closes the film, making it clear that they were always subject to that role. However, on the question of setting, I’m still not sure why the treehouse was so significant. I understand that it’s a demonic chapel, but I’m not sure why this space in particular was singled out? And what was the significance of the northwest? I’m sure some of these questions are intentionally left unanswered, but I suppose it provides further illustration to the cult’s beliefs and how particular everything had to be.
As you read the script, it really underlines how much of the shock and horror is crammed towards the end: I think the polarisation around this film may come down to an attention span issue. So many of the most traumatic and memorable scenes are contained in the last few moments before the very end. As a result, I would also like more on the ‘endgame’ of the cult: we see them go to such great lengths to have Paimon manifest in Peter’s body, but it’s not clear what the actual purpose of this is (was he not more powerful after the séance anyway?). A lot of horror films seem to end inconclusively. I suppose the culmination of chaos and lack of control or logic (at least for the family as subjects) as themes means that the ending must be left open. In the end, no amount of rationalisation or puzzling out works, and we have to accept that there’s no reason for demonic entries to operate on a human understanding of logic.