Insidious; Or, R-Rating Manifesto, Part 2

This entry almost wasn't. For one thing, it is a bit contrary to my last entry, in which I expressed my reservations in watching Insidious, a PG-13 horror movie. Also, I just couldn't find the words. However, after talking to a friend of mine today (love you, Jordan, but we have to disagree here), I felt I had to defend this film.

The film in question is Insidious, James Wan's latest stab at the horror flick.



I railed against PG-13 horror movies, yet I still was first in line to see this movie on opening night. And, no, I still haven't changed my stance on the rating system. I even have one more point to make: There are no giggly thirteen year old boys and girls taking up the theater! I was easily the oldest person in the room, next to my father, who was kind enough to take me out for the evening. Everyone else was clearly in middle school, probably have been dropped off by his or her parents to meet friends for a night out. Needless to say, the evening was filled with talking and laughing and screams at odd places, all punctuated by the glow of several tens of cell phones being flipped open during the show. Thanks, by the way, to Memphis Malco for sending ushers in to quiet everyone down; otherwise, the movie would have been miserable. After the ushers coming in a few times with stern warnings, the movie theater was nice and quiet.

But, I was going to say, before Truth broke in with all her loud children (can you tell I've been teaching Frost this week?)

Wan hit it out of the park with Insidious. From the previews, I was expecting the run-of-the-mill paranormal movie, which would have been great for me, but what I got was so much better. From the opening credits, with the oversized lettering and screeching, dissonant music, I knew I was in for a much different experience. Insidious is made by people who love horror movies, who both take the genre seriously and have fun with it. It reminded me at times those in-your-face horror movies of the late 60's and early 70's, films like The Legend of Hell House, which involved another group of people battling the supernatural (seances and nerdy scientists included), or even the earlier films of someone like William Castle, who took out life insurance policies through Lloyd's of London for audience members concerned about seeing his movie Macabre. Those are the kind of films that enjoy the genre, even exploit it. Those are the kinds of films that have fun with genre, and as a result, the audience have fun too.

More than that, though, Wan manages to take the horror genre seriously at the same time. I loved the concept of "The Further," and while many critics might say that the last act of the film seems to be a poor fit for the rest of the plot, I disagree. Any writer or director who takes on horror needs to address the Other, the idea that there is something beyond our physical realm. After all, how can you accept ghosts, or vampires, or even things that go bump in the dark without exploring their realm? H. P. Lovecraft did this. Stephen King had done this. All masters of horror have achieved that "master" status because they were willing to explore their own version of "The Further."

Is this movie perfect? No. It has its rough spots, but it was also everything I wanted in a good, enjoyable horror movie. I'll be watching Wan to see what he comes up with next.