 |
| From http://ecx.images-amazon.com /images/I/51SDYY7Q36L.jpg |
Director: Lesley Manning
Screenplay: Stephen Volk
Cast: Michael Parkinson; Sarah
Greene; Mike Smith; Craig Charles; Gillian Bevan
Synopsis: On Halloween night 1992, a special live program on the
BBC intends to document real paranormal activity at the residence of a divorced
woman (Brid Brennan) and her two
daughters (Michelle and Cherise Wesson).
Hosted by Michael Parkinson, with
former Blue Peter presenter Sarah Greene inside the house with the
family, and Red Dwarf Craig Charles interviewing the locals
outside, the homestead has been said to be plagued by various poltergeist phenomena
such as destruction of property, strange noises and scratches suddenly appearing
on the older daughter's face and neck. With paranormal scientist Dr Lin Pascoe
(Gillian Bevan) in the studio with
Parkinson, it becomes increasingly apparent that the ghost dubbed
"Pipes" is more than originally bargained for. Phone calls from
viewers inform the show of a much darker history to the house being
investigated for all the prank calls the show also gets, and it becomes more
apparent whatever force is contained in the house it's far more powerful than perceived. |
| From https://thatwasabitmental.files.wordpress.com /2011/01/1992-ghostwatch.jpg |
Continuing a Nigel Kneale theme, this work of acclaim and infamy was originally
meant to be a mini-series, culminating narratively in a Quatermass and The Pit (1967) style ending. Instead of this the
planned final episode set in a BBC studio during a "live" programme
became the notorious and beloved TV movie called Ghostwatch. Ghostwatch
is actually bookmarked by credits informing the viewing that its fictitious,
but that didn't stop it from scaring the bejesus out of the audience and
causing a scandal for the press. The premise is ingenious even now in the more
technologically advanced modern day with reality television shows about haunted
houses, the execution of making it look like an actual BBC television
production perfect. From the lines of people taking calls from the viewers to
the spooky set design in the show within the film, it looks aesthetically accurate
to the type of programming found on the BBC during the mid-nineties. Instead of
a normal narrative style, making the story centre around a fictitious broadcast
is refreshing still and still allows for every important point to be placed
carefully.
 |
| From http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/styles/full/public/image /ghostwatch-1992-002-presenter-open-line.jpg?itok=ybPVN8Mp |
The conviction of making Ghostwatch be as realistic as possible
goes as far as the casting of real hosts and stars of BBC programming alongside
actors playing fictitious roles. This may not translate as well to non-British
viewers or those who didn't grow with some of the people cast on their television
screens, but it adds a lot to the material having some knowledge of them. Michael Parkinson is a beloved figure on
British television, especially as a talk show host, a figure known for his wit
but also having an affable aura around him of an older gentleman or a grandfather,
his scepticism of what could be happening, and how he works around the prank
calls and increasing problems visibly taken from real verisimilitude of working
on television as a host. To see him potentially in the midst of a horrifying
discovery would've as much of a shock for viewers as it would've been if this
was created in the USA rather than Britain and Johnny Carson was cast in the role. Casting the real life couple of
Sarah Greene and the late Mike Smith has the added significance
that, knowing they were married, the friendly teasing of each other early in
the programme has a clear sense of real emotion to it, as does the fear Smith shows when his wife may be in
peril alongside the family and the camera team with her. Finally as the
sarcastic, comic foil who doesn't take the haunting seriously at all, Craig
Charles is more than appropriate as the laddish, loud personality who just
skirts being obnoxious. Someone who I grew up with in Red Dwarf and as the
presenter of Robot Wars when he replaced Jeremy Clarkson, he could've easily
played the same role in a slasher film as a prankster character.
 |
| From http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rAHVVWHhe0Y/T6_-tDAPtJI/ AAAAAAAAAC0/HcwzM1EI7vg/s1600/2.jpg |
The supernatural content of Ghostwatch is still as strong today. It
begins with a suitably eerie tone - seeing the recorded evidence from Dr. Pascoe
of what has already taken place in the house - and progresses to something even
worse than even she could've envisioned, the story going as far as tackling
very adult and transgressive ideas as it reveals who Pipes might actually be. The
framing device of the live television show adds many layers, not only blurring
the lines of reality, including a real phone number shown continually onscreen
that eventually became besieged by calls during the 1992 screening, but allows
the plot points to be brought up very organically. The fictional audience
phones the show very early on claiming they've seen a ghostly figure in a piece
of archival footage shown, adding tension and mystery immensely, and the
general interaction between the in-studio show and the on-location house
changes how the story is told with immense grace.
Then, without spoiling it for the
uninitiated, the film starts to bring in an implication straight from a Quatermass story where the technology
for the TV show itself becomes a harbinger of a greater, unknown power. As the
realisations of what is going on only sink in even for the paranormal
scientist, suggested continually in clues throughout the show, it eventually
ends with a suitably unsettling, open ended finish. That Michael Parkinson is at the centre of the final few minutes makes
it more disturbing for anyone who grew up with him, the steward of Saturday
night television in a finale that not only reflects back on the Quatermass films but looks forward to
what the Japanese would do in depicting ghosts and technology, as close in the
end to the likes of Ringu (1998) and
Pulse (2001) as it is to classic
ghost stories.
 |
| From http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qfaeskpJOEo/VgKgRj6O7FI/ AAAAAAAAM2s/6gTslxuJS7A/s1600/Ghostwatch-Craig-Charles.png |
Technical Details:
Alongside the framing device depicting the story as a "live"
production, this predates films like My
Little Eye (2002) and found footage movie like Paranormal Activity (2007)
with its use of various different types of cameras. As a live show, cameras are
set up throughout the house offering various ways to depict the narrative but
also adding to the fear of what could take place, as does having a cameraman
with Sarah Greene who is just as
vulnerable. Naturally, bringing in new technology for the movie as much as for
the show within the story, there's tools such as infra-red capabilities that
are brought up with the meaning of Chekhov's Gun. These various cameras, as
props, are used in very interesting ways, more so when the technology itself
becomes centre of the finale, being used as much to play tricks on the viewer
as it does the participants in the live show within.
Abstract Spectrum: None
Abstract Rating (High/Medium/Low/None): None
Nothing to report.
 |
| From http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/styles/half/public/ image/ghostwatch-1992-001-girls-in-bedroom-objects-floating.jpg?itok=0apbsK1C |
Personal Opinion:
The testament to how good Ghostwatch is, its story timeless and
the technological details easy to update for another time period, is that you
could remake this for the modern day. As long as the ideas by writer Stephen Volk and director Lesley Manning weren't compromised, you
would still have a powerful little tale. Whether it would affect an audience
now, causing some to believe it was real or to at least enrage the Daily Mail newspaper, is debatable but
that wouldn't diminish how good it is. I certainly wasn't old enough to have
seen Ghostwatch during its first and
only BBC screening, and I went into it knowing of its back-story, so instead I
take away not only how good it is but how its infamy actually adds to this
quality.
No comments:
Post a Comment