Hereditary - Being Weird Does Not A Horror Movie Make

Here’s an unpopular opinion – I feel Hereditary(2018) relied on being strange and disturbing and got too much praise for it.

I can’ t say much the premise of this film, because it kind of spoils everything. The best I can do is that a family find out some weird truths about their grandmother after her passing.

And that’s part of the problem. Hereditary feels like it relies on shock tactics in order to stand out from the crowd. If you’ve seen it, you’ll know the event that was, to its credit, completely disturbing and unbearable to watch. But a good scare isn't just letting the camera linger too long. That’s what Hereditary was, to me – it’s the moments that pushed the boundary of horrible to leave you thinking ‘what just happened?’

But is that good? Sure, horror movies should scare and disturb their audience – that’s the point of them – but what’s the boundary of that? Context, I think. The torture porn of Saw has context – this is a serial killer with a game. Hereditary keeps its context until the end and that makes the gross-out horror lose meaning. Once it’s lost meaning, it just seems to be a question of ‘how shocking can we make it?’ (To it’s credit – it somehow captured the exact thought I had at eleven when I saw the wires used to cut clay for the first time. Both disturbing to watch and oddly comforting it wasn't just me that thought that.)

Hereditary received high praise for its acting and that is well deserved. Toni Colette’s acting is raw and real to the point where it’s uncomfortable to watch. We saw all of the grief – the tears and snot and spit – all of the anger and the guilt that comes with it. Her breakdown is a scene that shows raw, primal emotion, and that’s uncomfortable, because films so often make breakdowns ‘pretty.’ (We see tears but not runny noses and twisted lips. Whatever’s happening with Colette’s mouth made me despise the character – in a way I suppose you’re meant to.) In fact, she does such a good job that everyone else in the movie isn’t talked about as much. Gabriel Byrne does a superb job with his quieter grief and, sells us pure guilt and confusion just as well.

But Alex Wolff – seeing his character of Peter revert to an infantile mindset is, again, simply uncomfortable. It’s not unsettling in an intriguing way, it’s unsettling in a ‘I want to turn this off, but everyone said it’s really good,’ way.

I did like the séance scene. The reactions to it were captured well and sold the characters as people – it reminded me of exploring grief in the same way as Before I Wake.

The rest of the film – the climax – is just hard to watch. It’s a disturbing, uncomfortable, unsettling experience, and that should be all of the marks of a good horror movie. But keeping the premise and the rules till the end made it seem like a muddle of being strange and disturbing just for being strange and disturbing’s sake. What was the meaning of any of this? What was the deeper message?

Need there be one?

Yes. If you’re going to push the boundaries like this, give us a reason why. Tell us what exactly the purpose of these two hours were besides showing quite a nasty family break down into messes. Otherwise, I have nothing to take from it. The heart of the movie is shock factor, and that doesn’t make a solid foundation.

(Neither does the film hinging on the decision to send the thirteen year old anywhere with the sixteen year old. School event or party it just seems like a very silly decision.)