I See You (2019)

Warning: I’m not going to spoil the very twist-heavy film completely, but I will at least discuss the horror sub-genre it will turn out to use the most, which is a rather major spoiler in this case!

The Harper family does suffer from rather a lot of inter-familiar tensions right now. Mother Jackie (Helen Hunt) has apparently cheated on her husband Greg (Jon Tenney), causing rifts to open not just between herself and him but also their teenage son Connor (Judah Lewis) who clearly also has a lot of other teenage issues independent from this to work through. Jackie’s clearly trying to make up for her error but the men don’t exactly seem willing to forgive; or really, not even willing to give up on rubbing salt in everyone’s wounds. Well, at least they have a house so big, you’d usually house four or more families their size in it, thanks to Jackie coming from money (which Greg of course doesn’t cope terribly well with because of some macho bullshit or other).

The tension isn’t going to decrease with Greg’s new case. Kids in the area are disappearing and later turning up dead. Some evidence suggests it’s a sequel to a series of kidnappings and murders of children a couple of years earlier. The problem is that Greg’s partner Spitzky (Gregory Alan Williams) was working the earlier case, and he is absolutely convinced the man they arrested then was indeed responsible for the murders.

While all this is going on, peculiar and disturbing things happen in the Harper home. At first, it’s only minor things, a cup not being where Jackie put it, and things like that, but the situation escalates rather quickly, the occurrences turning threatening in very intimate ways, suggesting an movement towards something much worse. Given the state of relations between the Harpers, it’s not surprising that everyone acts a little paranoid, not exactly thinking the other members of the family carry any responsibility for what’s going on, yet also not quite trusting each other not to have been responsible. Of course, things are much worse than that.

As the more frequent visitors among my imaginary readers know, I don’t generally enjoy movies that are heavily based on twists, mostly because these films tend to subsume what I find rather more interesting in a narrative – mood, theme and character – under the needs of plot affordances. So it can initially come as a bit of a surprise how much I think of Adam Randall’s I See You.

There are a couple of reasons for that, however. Firstly, while plot certainly is the most important element of the film, it just scarcely beats my old friend mood. For much of the first act here isn’t just used to bring all the pieces for the twist chess game onto the board but also create a mood of dread, mostly with techniques that reminded me, particularly in combination with the astonishingly creepy score by one William Arcane (which must be pseudonym, right?), quite a bit of Hereditary, not quite as a brilliantly realized, but highly effective nonetheless. And though the film’s structure doesn’t really lend itself to very deep characterisation, what is there is excellently played and written (script by Devon Graye), suggesting a lot of backstory instead of spelling it out. Unlike most twist movies, I See You also seems to understand the importance of fitting the twists and the characters to each other, so you never get the feeling the twists contradict what we have learned about these people but instead deepen and complicate it.

Returning to the importance of mood, the film changes its early tone of dread rather effectively with the mid-act reveal, at the same time changing genre and stepping from what felt like the start of highly disturbing supernatural horror into the usually less exalted area of the home invasion movie, and so promising a very rational explanation for what’s going on. We do indeed get that explanation, eventually, but not before the movie has assumed another form again, returning to the feeling of dread without the involvement of anything possibly supernatural.

The home invasion element seem to me particularly interesting on a thematic level. My problem with the home invasion film in general – certain examples of it are of course quite different – is the one of its class politics: these are usually films about rich people (and yeah, they’re going to call themselves middle class, but they are indeed rich to anyone who isn’t) being threatened by that most horrible of things, people from the lower classes who clearly haven no reason at all to be angry, no sir, the films all too often aiming for total identification with the rich people fighting off the monstrous poor. For someone coming from a line of people cleaning up other people’s messes, this sort of thing is pretty damn distasteful to me. So I found myself rather delighted that I See You doesn’t actually use the home invasion scenario this way. Instead, it turns out to be a film not about a threat coming from outside violating the innocent bourgeoisie, but the outside force invading the rich family’s privacy (secretly in this case) is actually there to witness and reveal all the horrors and dangers that have been lurking under the veneer of normalcy all along, the true danger coming from the inside and not the outside. And no, this isn’t so crudely done as to make everyone in the family cannibals or in fact even a horrible person; the film does prefer a bit more complexity. Which also turns I See You’s formal trickery and at least most of its twists into methods to enhance its thematic pull, using its narrative form as part of its argument.


Throughout, the film is also simply an engaging piece of horror cinema, breathing an air of the creepy and the wrong, going through its twists like they actually mean something. And sure, since the film is playing fair, I did see quite a few of the twists beyond the genre shift coming before the actual dramatic reveal; I just found the rest of I See You so engaging on other levels, this felt like a minor problem in a film that does so very much right.

Three Films Make A Post: These aren't everyday people and this is no ordinary movie.

The Babysitter (2017): Kid (Judah Lewis) learns his beloved/lusted after babysitter (Samara Weaving) and her friends are satanists of the type really into human sacrifice and playing truth or dare to warm up; also, milking the blood of the innocent. A night of somewhat bloody mayhem ensues.

Given his usual predilections, this shallow horror comedy directed for Netflix by the name-disabled McG is downright un-annoying, keeping the pseudo-hip ad-man style the guy’s been using for a decade now somewhat in check enough to actually tell a straightforward tale in an effective, well-paced manner. The film generally manages to ignore all the best opportunities talking – or making decent jokes – about all kinds of interesting stuff connected to the meaning of being a grown-up, burgeoning sexuality and so on and so forth and trades it in for pretty young people, a lot of blood, and an okay rollercoaster-style time. It’s a perfectly okay way to spend (less than) ninety minutes with pretty, moving, mildly bloody pictures without much behind them.

Kwaidan aka Kaidan (1964): On the absolute opposite of the horror movie spectrum stands Masaki Kobayashi’s venerable classic of a horror anthology based on Lafcadio Hearn’s versions of Japanese ghost tales. It’s slow-moving, artfully stylized, mixing moments deeply informed by Japanese theatrical forms with techniques right out of the German expressionist handbook as well as others as state of the art of filmmaking in 1964 as you’d expect of a Japanese film. It’s a movie that manages to be at once deeply rooted in traditional Japanese culture and aim for the universal as it is expressed through ghost stories, filtered through a the work of a man who wasn’t Japanese by birth. Given its three hour running time and its calm and theatrical air, one might fear this is the kind of “classic” mostly feeling worthy and dead like certain museum pieces do, but in truth, the film’s still challenging and moving, at times creepy, at other times bizarre, and absolutely daring in the way Kobayashi expects his audience to follow him in seemingly peculiar directions. Of course, following him is extremely rewarding.

It Comes at Night (2017): Supposedly the straightforward horror follow-up to Shults’s incredible Krisha, this is actually a film that seems to very consciously – just look at the title and what doesn’t happen in the film! - evade explanations and exposition that would help an audience make sense of its in theory simple viral post-apocalypse tale. What exactly is the nature of the illness striking the world? Is it a metaphor for inner tensions and fractures of the film’s characters more than an actual disease? Are the nightmares of the film’s viewpoint character (Kelvin Harrison Jr.) only an expression of his anxiety and fear, an early symptom of the infection, or a hint at the supernatural? This and more the film’s not going to explain. What you get instead is a movie about a breaking and broken family unit during an ambiguous apocalypse, filmed with a mounting sense of dread and acted brilliantly by Harrison, Joel Edgerton, Carmen Ejogo, Riley Keough and Christopher Abbott, moving slowly but surely.


I’m not completely sure the film needs to be quite this ambiguous about so many things, but as a mood piece and a portrait of human self-destruction, the film’s very successful to my eyes.