Hereditary (2018)

[That One Girl]

.

Edited April 21, 2022 by That One Guy

[AniNate]

The mash cut from Peter to Charlie's severed head with ants crawling over it was some fucked up shit. I wanted to curse the filmmaker for doing that.

[Jake Gittes]

I really don't think there's room for ambiguity here regarding whether the supernatural stuff is real or not. It plays too big a role to just be something imagined by the characters. 

[La Binoche]

9 hours ago, baumer said:

 

I didn't care for the film at all, but to start off, here are some: This film is very nicely shot. The lighting is perfect and for about 15 minutes the director does a good job of ratcheting up a somewhat believable tension. The cinematography is great. The acting is just OK in the aggregate - Collette is very good, but I don't even see why Gabriel Byrne signed up for this. The kids have the difficult job of making otherwise ridiculous and totally unbelievable scenarios and behaviors seem as though they might be possible. 

Now to the negatives (SPOILERS AHEAD): People simply do not behave in the ways that are depicted in this movie. 

You don't send a 10 year old (I know she was 13 or 14 during filming, but she doesn't look it at all) to a high school party with a senior. A high school senior who plans on smoking some dube doesn't take his 10 year old sister along at his mom's bizarre request without an argument. Further, you don't do that - even if you're grieving-but-not-grieving over your recently departed mother - when the girl suffers from a severe nut allergy and you don't do it without sending an Epi Pen along with your son. 

People who just decapitated their sibling in an auto accident don't simply drive home, go to bed, and leave a human head on the ground (much less your own sister's) then wait for their parents to discover the headless body in one of the family's two Volvos the next morning - presumably after bleeding out in the back seat. Additionally, when this kind of thing happens, the cops tend to get involved, In this movie, however, that's exactly what happens and no police, no cleanup and they're driving the car in the very next scene.

When your son, who has weeks or days earlier killed your daughter, resumes going to school almost immediately, without therapy or counseling, has a seizure and bashes his own face in on the desk, you don't load his lifeless body into the same Volvo, drive him home, and deposit him into his bed - still unconscious - without any kind of medical consultation or observation at all. Laughably ridiculous. 

The reaction of the family to the mother's dalliances into the world of seances and such is just not believable. I don't know how else to say it.  And when one of the ways to advance the plot is when the mother explains to her new friend that she one day tried to kill her son by dousing him in lighter fluid, for my money that weakens the story.  It's one scene (and there are many) that is just weak.

And the problem with all of the above is that what little plot there is absolutely requires the audience to suspend disbelief in the very essence of human nature and behavior and accept without any question that these kinds of things are likely or possible.

In addition, the whole convoluted idea is just ridiculous and unnecessary. So the evil, manipulative matriarch wanted to get a suitable male host for her demon lover, but in the process screws up several attempts over a generation, and puts him into a little girl's body instead - meaning that she has to be killed and then he can possess the boy. OMG..SMH...WOW

Finally there's the underlying conceit to the way the whole picture was made. When you have to rely on an unnerving soundtrack to create a mood in a movie like this, you're not doing it right. In any case, it didn't work. At no point was anyone in the audience frightened or unnerved and I heard several laughs and scoffs during moments that apparently were supposed to be scary or meaningful. 

I suppose I should have seen this sophistry coming.  The director actually made the ridiculous claim that he views "The Shining" as a comedy movie - and that's it's more effective as such than it is a horror movie. The guy is clearly delusional and making movies only for himself and his industry/film school buddies. 

 

The end of the movie is so silly, so out of left field that you just leave without even knowing what to say.  Peter is being chased by his mom, presumably to kill him, then she levitates, slices off her own head with piano wire or something, then he runs out to the tree house, sees naked men in a circle, and mom's creepy seance friend calls Peter the king of Hell and now he will rule the world, or something.  

 

This is not my kind of horror.  

Avoid. I'm not kidding - wait for it to hit Netflix. There are better ways to spend 2 hours.

 

3/10

Exactly.  And I really wanted to love this b/c I love horror and I love Toni Collette.  

Also, what triggers the supernatural to start?  Is it the seance?  That happens fairly late in the movie.  Why did Collette have scary visions of her mother prior to the seance?  What did her mother WANT?  I'm still not clear... Why did all this shit happen after her mother died?  Couldn't she have done this while she was alive?  It's a clusterfuck of unanswered questions, and not in a scary or interesting way. 

[JohnnyGossamer]

57 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

I mostly dug this. Has a great atmosphere and some truly horrific imagery. But ultimately it has the same problem a lot of recent horror films do in struggling to have a point. Whatever ideas Aster may have had on his mind, they're too obtuse and ambiguous on screen to actually reach the audience. It's a film that's mostly enjoyable as a simple mood piece.

I don't disagree with this... Actually, has a pretty plain, general point. Lacks the focus to really drive it home. Babadook has a similar commentary on mental illness and while the imagery and tone isn't as impressive as that of Hereditary it does a much more effective job at driving home the idea and tying it into the arc of the primary player of its story.

 

It's a very general point of mental illness being hereditary and how said illness coupled with the extreme grief that illness can bring about will destroy you and everyone closest to you until you're essentially unrecognizably consumed, possessed by it. You lose yourself and you're helpless against. It's an incredibly cynical film, especially if you don't buy that supernatural was occurring but rather just manifested in fractured minds of the family.

[JohnnyGossamer]

21 minutes ago, La Binoche said:

Exactly.  And I really wanted to love this b/c I love horror and I love Toni Collette.  

Also, what triggers the supernatural to start?  Is it the seance?  That happens fairly late in the movie.  Why did Collette have scary visions of her mother prior to the seance?  What did her mother WANT?  I'm still not clear... Why did all this shit happen after her mother died?  Couldn't she have done this while she was alive?  It's a clusterfuck of unanswered questions, and not in a scary or interesting way. 

I think all of these answers are pretty obvious but agree with Jake Gittes regarding how it's narrative through line is awkwardly structured and stumbles. Only works in fits and starts. The acting, imagery, overall tone, etc. are far more convincing that screenplay. Probably should've been sharpened up and tightened up a bit. It's seems far more convoluted than it actually is due stumbling blocks in the story structure and delivery of said structure.

[JohnnyGossamer]

29 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

I really don't think there's room for ambiguity here regarding whether the supernatural stuff is real or not. It plays too big a role to just be something imagined by the characters. 

I agree with this... You can definitely see panda's argument. But, I took it as the family had illness on her mother's side which made them more susceptible to the occult - Collette's mom joining in the first place - and more likely manipulated, consumed by the raised evil - the daughter, brother and Collette. They gave them a push and they were already prime targets. The big push made it easy money to resurrect the demon in the end.

 

I do think panda's idea is definitely a metaphor that the filmmaker's are pushing.

 

It's hereditary as in the mental illness does indeed run in the family AND Collette's mother - easy prey for the cult - willingly imposed the suffering on her loved ones because she was a true believer that the impossibly grave suffering they'd experience was well worth it if it resulted in the resurrection of the demon Paimon. As in, she passed that along too.

[That One Girl]

.

Edited April 21, 2022 by That One Guy

[Jake Gittes]

2 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

 

For the record I didn’t mean to say this; I definitely believe that the supernatural shit happened within the film. I was referring to how believable all of the supernatural elements were

I was commenting on Panda's post, sorry for confusion. Agreed on your second point.

[Cmasterclay]

The demons in these movies always have such great, demon-y names. Paimon is a good example. Very demon-like name. Never see a demon named like Mike or Brad or something.

 

Anyway, pretty good!

[The Panda]

4 hours ago, tribefan695 said:

I mostly dug this. Has a great atmosphere and some truly horrific imagery. But ultimately it has the same problem a lot of recent horror films do in struggling to have a point. Whatever ideas Aster may have had on his mind, they're too obtuse and ambiguous on screen to actually reach the audience. It's a film that's mostly enjoyable as a simple mood piece.

I don’t think it’s fair to say it doesn’t have a point.  Because it clearly does, it’s the fact you have to digest a lot to reach that point (and I would say some of the thematic content is a bit jumbled, some of it could have been streamlined a bit).

 

I would say a mainstream audience member who doesn’t care about analyzing a film for its themes would miss  the overall ideas because they’re pretty we layered in the film.  Not sure if I’d call that a flaw in the film or a flaw in mainstream audiences though.

[The Panda]

4 hours ago, Jake Gittes said:

I really don't think there's room for ambiguity here regarding whether the supernatural stuff is real or not. It plays too big a role to just be something imagined by the characters. 

I’m thinking there was the occult, and they were going after Peter, and I also think they’re behind Collette’s death.  I’m just more prone to thinking most of the freaky stuff was created from the characters guilt.

[AniNate]

I feel like I'm pretty willing to analyze a film's thematic content, but that doesn't mean I'm always satisfied with it. Aster clearly has something to say, but when it's as jumbled as this he shouldn't realistically expect it to register with everyone.

[JohnnyGossamer]

21 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

I feel like I'm pretty willing to analyze a film's thematic content, but that doesn't mean I'm always satisfied with it. Aster clearly has something to say, but when it's as jumbled as this he shouldn't realistically expect it to register with everyone.

I agree with this... It has a point, meaning, message, etc. It's just a very general one and a somewhat unsatisfying one to me as well. The execution and communication of themes in It Follows, Babadook, The Witch, Raw are more impressive to me. And, the more effectively related to characters in those movies. But, just about everything else - especially so far technical aspects and mood created - are more impressive in Hereditary. Just my feeling. Like I've said, the movie feels more convoluted than it actually needs to feel. Probably easier and more readily digested with a second helping. 

[filmlover]

4 hours ago, tribefan695 said:

The mash cut from Peter to Charlie's severed head with ants crawling over it was some fucked up shit. I wanted to curse the filmmaker for doing that.

That shot legit gave me nightmares after seeing this. I think if Aster's storytelling in future movies is on par with his undeniable ability to conjure images that are certain to be seared into the brain based on this, he could become a really fascinating/special filmmaker.

Edited June 11, 2018 by filmlover

[AniNate]

Yeah, regardless of the issues I have with this film, Aster definitely has the potential to become a legend

[JohnnyGossamer]

12 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

Yeah, regardless of the issues I have with this film, Aster definitely has the potential to become a legend

 

17 minutes ago, filmlover said:

That shot legit gave me nightmares after seeing this. I think if Aster's storytelling in future movies is on par with his undeniable ability to conjure images that are certain to be seared into the brain based on this, he could become a really fascinating/special filmmaker.

Yeah. This. And, his storytelling isn't really all that bad but it just doesn't match his technical skill...yet. Looking forward to his next one.

[Fanboy]

Saw this a second time and I think it's masterful. I think the ending definitely sits with you better after a second viewing. I definitely noticed the Rosemary's Baby thing even more this time. I love its allusions to it because it suggests to me that through the eyes of Annie, Peter was a demonic/satanic child she didn't want. In the original alternate ending they filmed it went even further and had Paimon rip Peter's eyes out, which would be playing on the "What did you do to his eyes?!" ending of Rosemary's Baby. It explains why Peter's eyes are cut out in the photographs that the cult were using. I'd love to see the alternate ending to compare it to the original, cause after a second viewing I don't know what would freak me out more. There's something about Peter's untouched empty face being crowned that has just stuck with me so well. 

For me, though, Hereditary is mainly about our lack of control of our own fate. We're our own people that make our own decisions, but are we still just puppets of God? The director talked about Annie's miniatures and how they represent how the characters in the story are puppets/dolls that are easily manipulated by outside forces they're unaware of. It drills that theme in in the speech that Peter's English teacher gives as Peter's attention is completely on the girl in front of him. "Is it more tragic or less tragic if the characters have a choice?" In Hereditary it seems as if they're all doomed from the start. 

If you take the plot literally, everything that happens in Hereditary is 100% staged. There are numerous things that happen that confirm this, I even noticed the grandma's cult symbol drawn on the telegraph pole that kills Charlie later on. But it's a film that goes beyond that. It's both very real, and very dream-like, sometimes in a sense that reminded me of Mulholland Drive. There are some interesting things I noticed about Annie's behaviour that has me questioning things, specifically in the scene where Steve catches fire after she burns the book. Before she throws the book in the fire she seems to say her goodbyes to Steve, as if she's aware she's not in control of herself anymore. Steve makes accusations that she was the one that dug her grandmother out of her grave, not quite convinced that there was a supernatural presence among them. I wonder if she burned Steve herself before she seems to instantly switch to a full possessed mode. Annie has definitely dealt with a lot of metaphorical demons before the film even starts. There's only so much one person can put up with until they lose their minds. 

What I still haven't figured out yet is what's up with Charlie? She may have known about her own demise at the beginning of the movie. It is implied that the grandma passed Paimon into her, yet she still seems a tragic innocent character that feels utterly hopeless. The scene where we hear her in the seance through Annie's body is fucking terrifying. "What's going on? Why is everyone scared?" She is the most vulnerable and first of the Graham family to be subject to the possession of "Paimon" and her fate is heartbreaking. 

But all of this still comes back to Peter. He has to live with the guilt of killing his sister. The car accident scene is among the greatest horror movie scenes of all time. I don't know anyone could call Peter's reaction unrealistic. I can't even imagine how I would react to something like that, especially as a teenager. It's such a great fucking scene because it understands perspective. We know what happened and we don't have to see it. Peter doesn't have to see it, and he definitely doesn't want to see it. We just see Peter's cold, hard face and the red brake lights behind him. Alex Wolff absolutely killed this scene in a way you only see from extremely accomplished actors. The way he mutters "Are you okay, Charlie?" just ruins me. I wonder if it was improvised. Ari Aster just knows exactly what to show, when to show and how to show it. It was one of the most visceral moments I've ever seen in any movie, ever. 

And going back to ending, I've noticed a shadow figure leaving Peter's body after he jumps out the window (which was a great nod to The Exorcist), and Joan saying "Charlie, you are Paimon, the eighth king of hell" to Peter at the end. I wonder why she mentions Charlie if Paimon is now in Peter's body. I want it to be out on Blu-ray already so I can dissect it more. There's so much to get out of this movie. 
 

[baumer]

10 hours ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

I agree with this... It has a point, meaning, message, etc. It's just a very general one and a somewhat unsatisfying one to me as well. The execution and communication of themes in It Follows, Babadook, The Witch, Raw are more impressive to me. And, the more effectively related to characters in those movies. But, just about everything else - especially so far technical aspects and mood created - are more impressive in Hereditary. Just my feeling. Like I've said, the movie feels more convoluted than it actually needs to feel. Probably easier and more readily digested with a second helping. 

 

Now RAW is a film I can get behind.  I absolutely loved it and yet the person I watched it with didn't care for it all that much.

 

As for the super natural element to this film, I don't see how anyone can debate that it's not real....nothing is in anyone's head.  Paimon and the seance and the witch stuff and the king of hell,it's all very much real.

[baumer]

I have to admit, even though I did not care for the movie, AT ALL, it's truly fascinating to read some of the stuff you guys got out of it.  Obviously it has done something right in order for so mnayhere to like it the way they do.