The First Trend of 2009: Point of View Trickery
Filed under: Horror, New Releases, Mystery & Suspense, Remakes and Sequels

Warning: This post contains major, movie-ruining spoilers for My Bloody Valentine 3D and The Uninvited. Don't read it if you haven't seen them, or if you have any intention of ever seeing them.
January leftovers My Bloody Valentine and The Uninvited have a few superficial things in common. They're both remakes (of a 1981 Canadian slasher film and a 2003 Korean thriller, respectively), they're both set in rustic little towns, they're both meant to scare you. But as those of us who have seen both films know, they also share a pretty significant plot device. We'll talk about it in the next paragraph, after one last spoiler warning.
Both films end with the surprise revelation that the protagonists, both recently released mental patients, are the real villains, and that they're so crazy they don't even realize what they've been doing. This is convenient, because it means the audience -- seeing the story through the protagonists' eyes -- has been in the dark, too. In My Bloody Valentine, the masked killer turns out to be Tom (Jensen Ackles), who has spent most of the film trying to stop the masked killer, unaware that it was himself. In The Uninvited, Anna (Emily Browning) has been convinced that her dad's girlfriend is trying to kill her. But as it turns out, Anna has been imagining it all, including conversations with her sister, Alex (Arielle Kebbel), who actually died a year ago. When "Alex" kills Dad's girlfriend at the end, it's really Anna holding the knife.
Neither of these films is the first to use the old split-personality-murderer trick, and the fact that they've been released two weeks apart is just a coincidence. But what does it say about modern scary-movie making?
I think it's the result of audiences getting harder to fool. The more movies you see, the more likely it is that you'll spot a film's surprises before it wants you to. If the central mystery is just a question of who the killer is, then we know it has to be one of the characters we've already met, so the only way for the movie to guarantee we don't guess correctly is to somehow exclude the real culprit from our list of suspects. The movie basically has to tell us, "This person didn't do it," even though he did. And how does a movie get away with that? By having the person not know he did it. If the movie is told from that person's point of view, then it's justified in reporting to us what that person thinks and sees, even if it's erroneous.
My Bloody Valentine accomplishes this by cheating, really. There's a pivotal scene early on where Tom and the killer are in the same scene, Tom locked in a cage and unable to stop the murderer from hacking some poor victim to pieces. This tells us, the viewers, that Tom and the killer are two different people -- Tom is not the killer. But at the end, when the truth comes out, the movie replays this scene from an objective point of view. Now we see Tom commit the murder, then lock himself in the cage so that when rescuers come they'll see he can't possibly have done the deed.
The problem with this method is that the movie is not told exclusively from Tom's point of view. It's from an omniscient, objective point of view, with numerous scenes that Tom isn't in. Therefore, it's a cheat to have ONE SCENE use the "unreliable narrator" trick, since every other moment of the film is what-you-see-is-what-you-get.
The Uninvited does a much better job of it. Here, the entire movie is told from Anna's point of view. It has to be -- if it ever shifted to someone else's viewpoint, we'd see that Alex isn't there and that Anna is talking to herself. (There is one violation of this, where the Elizabeth Banks character eavesdrops on Anna from outside her bedroom door, and we see Banks walk away, worried. This shot shouldn't be in the film, since it represents something outside Anna's knowledge.) We don't feel cheated at the end because we realize (though we might not have consciously noticed it at the time) the movie was always being presented through Anna's eyes. In other words, the movie never SAID Alex was alive and that Anna's mind could be trusted. All it really said was, "Here's the world as Anna sees it." We assumed that what Anna was seeing was reality simply because that's the case with 99% of movie protagonists.
Both films worked on me -- I didn't see either twist coming. In my defense, My Bloody Valentine had to cheat to get me (without that one scene, Tom would have been the primary suspect), but The Uninvited had me fair and square. For those who have seen the films, be honest: Were you fooled? Or did you figure out what was happening before the movie revealed it?










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-02-2009 @ 1:14AM
Eugene Novikov said...
I have taken to referring to this as The Ending. It is guaranteed to appear in at least two horror films a year. Make. It. Stop.
Reply
2-02-2009 @ 8:14PM
volta said...
Ugh. Hopefully it does end. Never ever has it been rewarding. Although I will forgive High Tension because that was actually pretty decent.
Reply
2-02-2009 @ 8:22PM
uforeader said...
My Bloody Valentine fooled me too, but for the very reason you stated - it cheated. Towards the end, I was beginning to hope it wasn't either of the main characters - now THAT would be a surprise ending. But, alas, I was wrong.
Modern movies should take a lesson from 'Psycho' and 'The Sixth Sense'... play by the rules!
Also, any movie that sets up as its only premise "who is the killer" is bound to have a disappointing ending. Ultimately, the audience either feels cheated, duped, or bored.
Reply
2-03-2009 @ 9:47AM
Kevin said...
I agree with you 99% of the time. But that one time you see it that it does work is usually pretty awesome. My example? The Usual Suspects.
2-02-2009 @ 8:46PM
J. Bryant said...
MY BLOODY VALENTINE did cheat, but there's a cool little giveaway in the "locked in the cage" scene. When the Miner locks Tom in the cage, and the two face-off, both of their movements are identical. Tom and The Miner both rise up, looking at each other, standing identically.
It's still a cheat, but it's also an ever-so-slight giveaway as to who the killer actually is.
Reply
2-02-2009 @ 9:55PM
Ryan said...
For some reason I just got this desire to see Fight Club again.
Reply
2-03-2009 @ 10:19AM
Tommy Tutone said...
Fight Club - right. Did you figure it out well before you were probably supposed to? I did. Same with "Jacob's Ladder." The greatest switcheroo ever in a major movie (up until that time) was Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho." Such a masterpiece. Brian De Palma tried for a similar effect in "Sisters" but he cheated - he showed the "two" sisters in the same scene, inter-acting, when in fact there was only one "twin" sister all along. We of the audience maybe didn't figure it out as soon as we should have because of DePalma's antics. Oobala googa!
2-02-2009 @ 10:04PM
S. Young said...
I agree with what J. Bryant said. The mirroring of the two characters as they stood up was quite subtle yet still a blatant kind of giveaway. Also, that same scene was metaphorical in a way. What we saw on screen was Tom locked in the cage while he watched Harry Warden kill that miner. In actuality, or seen from another point of view, was that it was Tom's mind that was locked away while Harry Warden's spirit reared up and possessed Tom's fragile mentality and killed the miner. Tom's subconscious could only watch from a distance. Either way, it was a cool twist.
Reply
2-02-2009 @ 10:19PM
drev said...
This is a good way to create a different world that confuses everyone form the characters to the audience, but when it is done like so; in both my bloody valentine and in the uninvited, its an incredibly cheap trick.
To my knowledge, the only time this was well done and effective was in High tension, it was fantastic and a great twist; not to mention it was a very well done film. But with the two recent movies, it is just a twist of the wrist (so to speak) from the killer pretending to be a victim; a la almost any scary movie with a disgruntled ex-(insert relation) acting like one of the main characters running around like a chicken with their head cut off. (See Scream 1-2-3)
These are cheap parlor tricks when they are done poorly, and they are great surprises when done well. Far too often do they turn out like this.
Reply
2-03-2009 @ 1:13AM
CJ said...
I knew from the get-go that Tom (MBV) was the killer. Even before I'd gone to the theater and had actually sat down to view the movie.. It just seemed logical to me that the one accused, was the one to commit.. it felt kind of like a Devour (Ackles also starred in this back in '05/06) 2.0? Similar storylines.
Reply
2-03-2009 @ 1:48AM
Jezza said...
Okay, I just had to post a comment here noting my complete disagreement that the very similar twist in High Tension worked.
Up until the final reveal...
SPOILER
The protagonist is also the killer.
END SPOILER
...this film was a very impressive exercise in old-school slasher suspense. But sorry people - THE TWIST MADE NO SENSE!!! There were repeated scenes where the protagonist is WATCHING the killer murder people. If the film was properly thought out and shot correctly, the protagonist and the killer could never see each other. It simply makes no sense. They are the same people.
Obviously My Bloody Valentine (which I have not seen) commits the exact same offense. And honestly, this just insults my intelligence. A film cannot pull a twist out of its bag of tricks10 minutes before the end of the film and expect us to go along with it. It has to be set up. And for any Fight Club naysayers, they must at least admit that the twist worked in retrospect.
A film is not just what happens, but how it happens. The shooting and character perspective is essential to an audience's understanding of a film. On a slight tangent, this reminds me of Babel and the deaf girl's section, where the film was shot from her perspective but predominantly presented to us in sound. If the girl is deaf, share that experience with us. Ugh.
Reply
2-03-2009 @ 9:27AM
techstar25 said...
** High Tension SPOILERS BELOW **
******************************
I agree with your assessment of High Tension. I too found it to be an awesome movie - until the end. You are right. It didn't make sense. It didn't follow any of the rules. The end just created one gigantic plot hole that could not be resolved no matter how many times you watched it.
In movies like this you have to follow the rules. You can't just say "Well, the girl was unconscious when she killed everybody and then just dreamed she saw it happen." I'm assuming that's what we were supposed to believe, and it doesn't work for me. Frankly, High Tension could have just stuck with a conventional ending and it would have been great.
2-03-2009 @ 8:55AM
Dante said...
Cabinet of Dr. Caligari? Anyone?
Reply
2-03-2009 @ 10:19AM
NP said...
Yes! This isn't exactly a new plot device.
Also, like others here, I picked up that Tom was the murderer when he and the miner/killer are face to face, literally mirrored.
2-03-2009 @ 12:45PM
Christian Toto said...
Good post. This trend is yet another nail in the horror movie coffin. It's as cheap as the 'it's only a dream' ending.
A good twist ending is when you realize that the rest of the movie made sense in retrospect. But to buy the "Uninvited" premise requires so much work ... and with so little reward.
Make. It. Stop.
Reply
2-03-2009 @ 12:28PM
Lloyd said...
The movie I remember doing this best was a 1970's nugget called "The Other". It scared the crap out of me when I was young and last year I had a chance to see it again and it really works as a plot device in this movie. Not a great movie but the protagonist/villan angle is intelligently done.
Reply
2-03-2009 @ 12:50PM
Key Rick said...
In the protagonist/villan angle intelligently done vein, does anyone else believe that David Lynch's decision in Mulholland Drive to have the actresses switch roles three quarters of the way through that film is, perhaps, the best sleight-of-hand in the history of all cinema?
Reply
2-04-2009 @ 7:14PM
vegimorph said...
on one hand it says to me that the horror movie is completely dead and cannont be revived. woohoo! good riddance! (sorry, kind of kidding, but that's how i feel about horror movies. I prefer suspene/mystery/thriller movies instead). on the other hand, every movie fan has a favorite genre and they deserve a good presentation of that genre instead of the same old cliches. so on this hand, horror fans should deserve better i guess. Best of luck to you guys
Reply
2-05-2009 @ 2:31AM
mavi161 said...
Too be honest, the Uninvited follows the same twist as the original did 6 years ago. It's not like it was created just for the remake. I loved the original film and thought that the remake did a pretty good job of updating the title. Critics complain about the dad's wooden performance, but if you've seen the original, you know that's how the dad acted in that one too.
Reply