The Woman in Black
As I was watching “The Woman in Black,” the underlying thought on my mind was…why can’t ghastly spirits haunt well-adjusted individuals? It’s ALWAYS gotta be the ones who have lived through tragedy, or have had a life-changing event of some kind. OK, “The Grudge” sort of broke the trend, but still…leave us screwed-up people alone, ghosts!
That’s just an observation of the conventions of the film’s genre, however, and having nothing to do with my final thoughts about the film, which were more than satisfactory. Though the screenplay, by “Kick-Ass” and “X-Men: First Class” co-screenwriter Jane Goldman (from a novel by Susan Hill), doesn’t spring any real narrative surprises until the very end, this ghost story, directed with a strong gift for atmosphere and dread by James Watkins, still gave me goosebumps. It’s one of the first films in quite a while to carry the Hammer Films brand, and its success at living up to the storied legacy of that iconic horror studio’s name is relatively muted considering what came before it (’cause let’s face it, the ’50s and ’60s films starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, among others, are classics), but nonetheless a wonderful continuation of the studio’s aesthetic.
The film begins with a chilling image of three young girls jumping out of a window to their death. After that, we meet Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe), a young father with a 4-year-old boy he has been left to raise after his wife died in childbirth. He is a real estate lawyer in London being sent to a small, English town to look through the paperwork of an old woman who has passed away, leaving behind an ominous-looking house (on an isolated isle, where the tide can separate it from the rest of the town), and a life of secrets. In true Gothic horror fashion, Arthur is told by the citizens of the town to go back to London, and leave the house be. When he goes out to the house, and finds himself seeing what appears to be the titular “woman in black,” he begins to think that maybe they’re on to something. However, as an older man (Daily, played by Ciarán Hinds) tells Arthur, “Don’t go chasing shadows.”
This is Radcliffe’s first starring role on-screen since the conclusion of the “Harry Potter” franchise, and it was a clever choice for the actor. Only 22 years old, Radcliffe still looks quite young (too young to be the father of a 4-year-old), although the dramatic depths the “Potter” series took his character have given him a soulfulness in his eyes well beyond his years. In this film, he isn’t given any great substance to play; like so many protagonists before him in the “ghost story” genre (and even his own Harry Potter), he is the person things happen to in the movie, and he is more than up to the task. For much of the film, it is just Radcliffe on-screen, playing off of sound and visual effects, as well as other forms of cinematic trickery, and he carries the movie exceptionally well. I don’t know if he’ll ever be able to be known for anything other than Harry Potter (and honestly, why would he necessarily want to be?), but as I was watching him in this film, I can see Radcliffe forging a long, intriguing film career simply by playing the types of roles his predecessors in the Hammer canon (Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Michael Gough) did, as well as mixing his film work with the type of bold, stage projects he’s taken on thus far.
As for the film itself, Watkins and his behind-the-camera collaborators deliver the goods with a haunting and timeless visual look that fits right in with the great classics of Hammer’s past, such as “Horror of Dracula,” “The Mummy,” and “The Hound of the Baskervilles.” If films like this and their 2010 production, “Let Me In,” are indicative of the sort of films the studio will be churning out in the future, I’ll be among the first in line for every, single one.
