WARNING: This Review May Contain Spoilers
I had to check before writing this article if these films were originally based on a book, but I think I may have been confusing them with The Haunting of Hill House which is something completely different. Obviously the main question of this article is which is better – the original black and white or the 90s remake but here’s a better question – would you stay in a supposedly haunted house for $10,000?
Introduction
Now, I had only seen the original once prior to writing this article so it’s no surprise that I didn’t remember it opening with a rattling female scream and the jangling of chains. So much so that I jumped a little bit. What I had remembered was the charismatic opening by Vincent Price. Unfortunately, the remake does not seem to have as much of an impactful opening. I’m not sure if it’s because with the original you are hit with the scream straight away against a black screen whereas with the remake you have the production company idents to get through first, as is typical of modern cinema, and I guess could be construed as the scream forms part of the instrumental music. The remake also does away with the haunting introductions but I’m not too sure if Geoffery Rush would have been able to do it that much justice.
The Curious Case of Watson Pritchard
You what to know something funny, even though I had seen this film before and knew the true motive – I still found it difficult to trust Pritchard in the original film. There’s something about the delivery of the character and the fact that he knows about every single murder that has taken place in the house on Haunted Hill that it makes him unbelievably suspicious. I think that’s the point though, keeping you looking in the wrong direction so that you don’t suss out the truth too early.
The important thing about Pritchard’s character is that he is terrified of the house because members of his family, and many other people, have died there. Yes, he owns the place but it has been in his family following the murder of his brother, which to Pritchard was unexpected and almost as if his sister-in-law was influenced by something otherworldly. The portrayals of this character differ extremely! I’m not sure if it’s the fact that the original is filmed in black and white or the way Elisha Cook Jr delivers the role but his Watson Pritchard looks genuinely terrified whereas Chris Kattan version rationalises the deaths of his family that had taken place in the house and just doesn’t seem as scared of the house as he’s meant to be. He is also forced to remain in the house, unlike Cook’s who is an invited guest like everyone else.
Additional Backstory
This is obviously more important in relation to the remake than the original film because, who needs a backstory when there are no ghosts to provide it for? OK, yes – Pritchard provides us with some stories of the deaths that have taken place in the house but that’s completely different to having the opening scene of the remake set 68 years prior to the events that take place. Maybe they felt this was more important than a chilling introduction to the following events and that it would set them apart from the original film.
In a weird kind of way you could say exactly what the same about the characters. Yes, in the original film Frederick Loren gives us a brief introduction to each of the party guests but we never find out much about him and Annabelle. In the remake on the other hand, we are made aware of Stephen Price’s job as we are introduced to him at his new theme park.
Lorens vs Prices
There’s something I love about the relationship between Frederick and Annabelle Loren. Each of their conversations are like sparing matches, almost reminiscent of Benedict and Beatrice in Much Ado About Nothing, except there’s no love at its core. Their first conversation even foreshadows Annabelle’s “death”, even though they aren’t actually talking about her at the time “I hear that hanging is very uncomfortable, in case you get anymore ideas”. Now, what’s strange for me is that it seems that Stephen and Evelyn’s first conversation takes place over the phone. I felt like in doing this they lost the tension that’s created between the couple. Now, Stephen and Evelyn do have a similar conversation to that of Annabelle and Frederick’s first interaction but this is only after Evelyn has already openly accused Stephen of trying to kill her. What’s odd for me, in relation to Geoffery Rush as Stephen Price, is the fact that it almost feels like they have tried to make him look the way Vincent Price did in the original film, with the pencil moustache.
I think one thing is true of both men, but it is much more subtle in the original film, and that is the fact that they love their wives – but hate their behaviour. Well, who wouldn’t be disappointed in a woman that keeps trying to kill them?
Side Note: I was going to mention this separately but as I couldn’t find any others it didn’t seem worth it. I wondered if the reason Stephen and Evelyn’s surname is Price is as a homage to Vincent Price who originally played Frederick Loren in 1959.
A Murderous Plot or Genuine Haunting
You know something, I love the simplicity of the original film. Here you have 7 characters locked inside a supposedly haunted house, 5 of them there in the hopes of earning $10,000 for staying the night – the other two are our hosts. Obviously there is the underlying plot of murderous intent but you are unaware of by whom until around 10 minutes from the end of the film. Now, this makes me wonder why the remake had to go to such convoluted length in order to make themselves stand out. They could have stuck with the same plot but brought it into the modern time period, which for the first part of the film is exactly what they did – so why bring in the supernatural element later on? It does start off gradually, with The Darkness posing as Eddie to kill Sara but once Evelyn is killed, the real one not the faked death, all hell breaks loose. Maybe this was their way of going for a larger body count as they felt – and I think I’ve referenced this in previous articles – the modern audiences just wouldn’t view the original as a horror.
The Gaslighting of Nora Manning
Now, because I was aware of the use of the supernatural in the remake before starting to watch it, I wondered if this was even going to be relevant to film as I assumed they may not have included the idea of matricide. The gaslighting and terrorizing of Nora in the original film forms part of Annabelle and David’s goal to commit the perfect crime, pushing her to be the one to kill Frederick. Now, the remake takes this idea and widens the net somewhat. Instead of Evelyn and Donald deciding to try and influence all the party guests in the hopes that one of them will take it upon themselves to kill Stephen.
Violence from the Outset
I think I’ve talked about this kind of thing before when looking at modern remakes of films made in 1950s/1960s. The original film is focused on suspense and fear, so much so that no one actually dies until the final scene and only two of them at that– one on-screen and one off-screen. Well, if you can say that Annabelle dies on-screen as all we see is her fall in to the acid-tainted wine. In the remake however, we are barely 5 minutes into the film before someone is killed in a reasonably gruesome manner. OK, yes the first actual murder in the house happens off-screen but the body count still ends up higher than the original film. Even Evelyn’s faked death is more violent than that of Annabelle’s hanging in the original.
In Conclusion
It’s been a while since I have said this because there’s been a few remakes that actually haven’t been too bad but I very much prefer the original version of this story. Now, that’s not to say I don’t understand what the remake was trying to do because of course I do, but in my opinion you can never go wrong with simple suspense mixed with isolation. In addition, I found the use of music in the remake a little distracting. The one thing I will ask about both versions of the film though, is how did he know?
