‹

“The Strangers” (2008)

›

Directed by Bryan Bertino

Satisfaction:Pleased Tags: Horror, True Story, Sexism

What’s more frightening? A faceless evil or or one that comes from a familiar place? Films like The Shining make convincing cases for the latter, but The Strangers (and I) would argue that the unknown gives us more to fear. The film begins with a statistic revealing that oh-so-many million American homes—but don’t quote me on that number—are invaded every year. This movie doesn’t try to explain why so many homes are intruded, or why it’s mostly done by strangers; The Strangers doesn’t bother with many “whys” at all. Though the countless chants of the phrase “why are you doing this?” got old, I do think that for this movie, presenting the killers as faceless was smartest. My personal fear of intruders doesn’t involve a backstory, so if one were provided for these strangers, I’d have balked.

Stranger Than Fiction

One sufficiently spooky, foggy evening, James (Scott Speedman) and Kristen (Liv Tyler, aging well) return to a country home from a wedding reception. Between now and morning, we know that something gruesome will happen to them. Basing a film on true events with many unknown details, as this one is, creates an inherent challenge for the writer and filmmakers. When you’re trying to make up what could have happened within a real time frame, you’d better make sure you have entertaining material, and plenty of it. The Strangers felt like the writer had an idea or two that what could have happened, but soon realized that there was too much running time for him to fill.

That could also be why we’re treated to a brief and redundant flashback. Funny, because just before it occurred, I was ready to compliment the film on its ability to set the stage more subtley. We were provided with looks, expressions, loud silences, quietly spoken words, and so much more that did a terrific job of revealing the immediate past without spoon-feeding it to us. Unfortunately, the movie launched into “explain the obvious” mode.

The Inherent Sexism in Horror

More often than not, James perpetuates the horror movie boyfriend stereotype, always misjudging the level of danger in the situation. Is this genre of film a little sexist? Women tend to be heroes in slashers while the men tend to be brash, a bit shallow, and aggressive. I’m okay with characters that make mistakes, but sometimes this kind of chauvinism gets annoying. I’m almost waiting for the guy’s next boneheaded mistake.

Then again, on a more basic (or primal) level, the execution of most slasher films really is sexist. For years, the overwhelming majority of movies in this genre have gone the route of “beautiful woman runs from killer, eventually prevails.” With only slight variations, that motif is seen in the likes of Halloween, Scream, P2, Black Christmas, and so many more. It makes plenty of sense if you go on the assumption that most horror fans are male, because beneath the obvious, there’s something very sexual about this scenario.

Heterosexual men like to see women in danger. Does the attraction come from the “damsel in distress” angle, someone who needs saving (even though we assume that in the end, she’ll save herself)? Or is it from the other side of things, from a sadistic side? Though it’s not often admitted, it’s common to be attracted to a woman in fear and pain (again, with the assumption that the protagonist will prevail). With that in mind, on a more extreme level, I’m now starting to think there’s some validity to the terms “gorno” and “torture porn”….

As with most things, the attraction probably lies somewhere in the middle.

Too Much Build-Up, Not Enough Substance

Tension percolates throughout the film’s running time. The typical horror film will hit certain notes at certain points—a kill here, a kill there, no one too important—in order to release that tension, but The Strangers was a little different. It was nice to see a film take its time to tease you along the way…and then it kept teasing. What was at one point pleasurable was now irritating. The Strangers runs long on the foreplay, and eventually I grew weary.

Sitting through that endless build up, I couldn’t help but think, “This thing is 1:45? They could easily shave 15 minutes off of this thing without losing much.” Exiting the theater parking lot, I was shocked to see that only an hour and fifteen minutes had passed since I initially parked my car. So unless I skipped out on a half hour’s worth of credits—I’m looking at you, Peter Jackson—or there was a missing reel at my screening (which I honestly considered after an abrupt reel change), there’s some embellishing going on with the film’s running time. I’m really not sure who to blame that on. Regardless, the fact that a 75 minute film felt 15 minutes too long reinforces my feelings that The Strangers didn’t have enough material to begin with, and stretched what it did have. In that respect, I feel kind of played.

↑