I'm not sure why so many critics hated this movie. I suspect that it has a great deal with how the movie was marketed. It is not a horror film, plain and simple. It isn't quite a ghost story, either. It is most definitely a psychological thriller. But, most important, I actually think the film delivers a series of important message about what truth means, what sanity means and what the costs are of seeing and understanding the world only with logic and not with your heart and intuition.
When I first saw the film, I was confused--I did not fully comprehend the whole ghost component (perhaps b/c of the misleading marketing). Nevertheless, I was intrigued and have since seen it several times. It gets better. I am using it to teach film (specifically ghost films) in a college level class because it uses and sometimes breaks with cinematic conventions in a way that is rather intelligent. The cinematographic technique is handled well and I appreciated the artful use of tracking shots, match cutting, close-ups. I didn't feel that any one type of shot was overused or misused.
Lighting is another example. Some may find the use of light heavy handed in this film. But I think it is used effectively to underscore the film's themes (academic-knowledge vs. intuitive knowledge; science vs. spirituality/ the supernatural; sanity vs. madness and where the truth fits into that). I also found the lighting downright pretty to look at.
I have read some critiques that mention that the film is preposterous and unbelievable, hinting that these problems stem from the film completely ignoring the conventions of realism. OF COURSE, the film is not realistic. No correctional facility would ever be as dimly lit; no psychiatrist would ever be allowed to be incarcerated with her former patients. I didn't think the plot was preposterous. It's outrageousness--that someone so accomplished as Doug or as boring as the sheriff could actually be sadistic and violent is part of the message . . . all is not as it seems.
The film relies heavily on convention. But I actually found that the intentional use of these conventions very satisfying. Water imagery, lightning storms, eerie music, light/dark, Devil/God, "vision,"--they were all used purposely and to good effect. A good example is the flickering lights--everyone knows that ghosts have electromagnetic effects in ghost movies, but it's how they are used and set up as part of the "science vs. supernatural" theme that makes it interesting. So I wouldn't call this film clichéd. I would say "stylized" and very self-conscious.
The other think I liked upon further viewing is the juxtaposition of normalcy with the cinematic atmosphere of creepiness. There are "realistic" touches in several scenes--for example, Miranda and the guard's chit-chat about swimming and her comment "Say hi to your wife" and the sheriff's "Say hi to Doug for me" as Amanda pulls away from the roadblock for a truly life-changing detour. But these are clearly placed ON PURPOSE into the heavy-handed ominous setting for effect. The effect on me was very de-centering and I found in retrospect that technique itself foreshadowed Miranda's transition from the "sane" to the "insane."
Other details struck me as well: the way you are right in Miranda's head in her relationship with the nurse. In the beginning, they are just typical colleagues, complaining about the lighting problems. But when that nurse came in to give Miranda her "breakfast" of meds, she was so freakin' annoying I could really feel how an asylum might actually enhance insanity. Then the nurse goes on to tell Miranda to take a shower and "Wash away her sins." Never caught that sadistic little exchange on the first viewing. Again--clichéd? I would argue intentionally stylized.
I'll mention one more detail because I think it says a lot. When the guards are searching for Miranda and circling the pool, they are carrying on in Miranda's old, "sane" worldjoking, chatting. And one of them comments, "Do professors always nail their pretty students?" This provides a glimpse into Miranda's past life (the assumption being that Doug may have seduced her while she was his student), at the same time that it contrasts the "sane" world of the joking guards and the "insanity" that Miranda is beginning to understand.
Finally, I think the movie is a strong statement to beware of what we think of when we think of mental illness. This is tied to a feminist messagethe film uses the stereotype of women as representative of intuition, the soul, heart and spirit and men as the representation of logic, law, God and academic knowledge. During the course of the film, the "male" world is exposed as potentially sadistic and violent; Miranda integrates her "female" heart and intuition to prevail. The movie stays away from making this purely stereotypical since Miranda is in the world of "logic" at the outset. Robert Downey is a liminal character that prevents the movie from saying that all men are sadistic butchers. Plus, Miranda makes a clear choice at the end of the film. She knows and accepts that she can see ghosts (i.e. use her "feminine" powers), but she clearly chooses to return to her "masculine" work rather than chase those ghosts. If she had fully integrated those two sides and ran off with Robert Downey (Mr. Liminality)? Now THAT would have been boring.
When I first saw the film, I was confused--I did not fully comprehend the whole ghost component (perhaps b/c of the misleading marketing). Nevertheless, I was intrigued and have since seen it several times. It gets better. I am using it to teach film (specifically ghost films) in a college level class because it uses and sometimes breaks with cinematic conventions in a way that is rather intelligent. The cinematographic technique is handled well and I appreciated the artful use of tracking shots, match cutting, close-ups. I didn't feel that any one type of shot was overused or misused.
Lighting is another example. Some may find the use of light heavy handed in this film. But I think it is used effectively to underscore the film's themes (academic-knowledge vs. intuitive knowledge; science vs. spirituality/ the supernatural; sanity vs. madness and where the truth fits into that). I also found the lighting downright pretty to look at.
I have read some critiques that mention that the film is preposterous and unbelievable, hinting that these problems stem from the film completely ignoring the conventions of realism. OF COURSE, the film is not realistic. No correctional facility would ever be as dimly lit; no psychiatrist would ever be allowed to be incarcerated with her former patients. I didn't think the plot was preposterous. It's outrageousness--that someone so accomplished as Doug or as boring as the sheriff could actually be sadistic and violent is part of the message . . . all is not as it seems.
The film relies heavily on convention. But I actually found that the intentional use of these conventions very satisfying. Water imagery, lightning storms, eerie music, light/dark, Devil/God, "vision,"--they were all used purposely and to good effect. A good example is the flickering lights--everyone knows that ghosts have electromagnetic effects in ghost movies, but it's how they are used and set up as part of the "science vs. supernatural" theme that makes it interesting. So I wouldn't call this film clichéd. I would say "stylized" and very self-conscious.
The other think I liked upon further viewing is the juxtaposition of normalcy with the cinematic atmosphere of creepiness. There are "realistic" touches in several scenes--for example, Miranda and the guard's chit-chat about swimming and her comment "Say hi to your wife" and the sheriff's "Say hi to Doug for me" as Amanda pulls away from the roadblock for a truly life-changing detour. But these are clearly placed ON PURPOSE into the heavy-handed ominous setting for effect. The effect on me was very de-centering and I found in retrospect that technique itself foreshadowed Miranda's transition from the "sane" to the "insane."
Other details struck me as well: the way you are right in Miranda's head in her relationship with the nurse. In the beginning, they are just typical colleagues, complaining about the lighting problems. But when that nurse came in to give Miranda her "breakfast" of meds, she was so freakin' annoying I could really feel how an asylum might actually enhance insanity. Then the nurse goes on to tell Miranda to take a shower and "Wash away her sins." Never caught that sadistic little exchange on the first viewing. Again--clichéd? I would argue intentionally stylized.
I'll mention one more detail because I think it says a lot. When the guards are searching for Miranda and circling the pool, they are carrying on in Miranda's old, "sane" worldjoking, chatting. And one of them comments, "Do professors always nail their pretty students?" This provides a glimpse into Miranda's past life (the assumption being that Doug may have seduced her while she was his student), at the same time that it contrasts the "sane" world of the joking guards and the "insanity" that Miranda is beginning to understand.
Finally, I think the movie is a strong statement to beware of what we think of when we think of mental illness. This is tied to a feminist messagethe film uses the stereotype of women as representative of intuition, the soul, heart and spirit and men as the representation of logic, law, God and academic knowledge. During the course of the film, the "male" world is exposed as potentially sadistic and violent; Miranda integrates her "female" heart and intuition to prevail. The movie stays away from making this purely stereotypical since Miranda is in the world of "logic" at the outset. Robert Downey is a liminal character that prevents the movie from saying that all men are sadistic butchers. Plus, Miranda makes a clear choice at the end of the film. She knows and accepts that she can see ghosts (i.e. use her "feminine" powers), but she clearly chooses to return to her "masculine" work rather than chase those ghosts. If she had fully integrated those two sides and ran off with Robert Downey (Mr. Liminality)? Now THAT would have been boring.