I felt quite confident about today’s choice. Directed by Steven Speilberg, #26 on the Time Out list, #40 on the Empire list and incredibly well-known, Poltergeist is another classic horror film from the 80s with a very strong 7.3 rating on IMDB. Surely this would bring a little more enlightenmentabout A. what a horror film is, and B. why they’re good.

Cross over, children. All are welcome. All welcome. Go into the light.

There’s no doubting that this is a horror film, albeit a relatively un-frightening one. It sometimes feels like a family-friendly suburban Speilberg film interspersed by jarring moments of face-tearing self-multilation, spectral demons and malevolent plant-attacks. The film is generally quite creepy, with the main exponent of this being Carol Anne, a very small and very disturbing child. I cannot be the only person who suspects that the whole supernatural situation of the Poltergeist movie is somehow the created through the intention of this one child.

I have seen The Shining and, in looking for suitable films for a month of horror, have noticed how many titles seem to feature the inherent freakiness of children as their main source of terror (think Children of the Corn, The Exorcist, Village of the Damned, etc…) It’s never a full-grown adult who says “I see dead people,” always a child. This, I expect, is because all children are constantly seeing dead people. It would be more of a shock if children weren’t seeing dead people. There’s definitely something going on with horror, creepiness and a general fear of the otherworldliness of children, in the same way that there’s something going on with zombies, old people and the fear of ageing. It’s almost like the nothingness before and after life creates a space for horror which seeps into the human states (childhood and old age) adjacent to it.

However, despite the feeling that the small, blonde child is entirely in league with the malignant forces in the house and the fact that a TV buzzing with white noise is surprisingly unsettling, the film is not very frightening and, as the visible instances of evil manifestation increase, becomes less so. We have not watched any “modern” horror yet, but it will be interesting to find out if special effects have progressed (or, indeed can progress) to the point where ‘seeing the monster’ no longer results in an anticlimactic deescalation of fear.

What else did you learn about horror films? Gratuitous nudity is not a pre-requisite. There was an opportunity for nudity and it was not taken. I was starting to think that ‘horror’ might just be a catch-all term for anything that some people might find unpalatable (gore, violence, nudity, chaotic plotlines), but Poltergeist seemed more consistent in both theme and story, which makes a nice change. Also they did the false-scare-then-scare thing where you are set up for a jump scare, only for it to happen immediately after you think the moment has passed. Not scary, but I still think it’s a relevant technique. Also, like Phantasm yesterday, there seem to be a few sequels. Horror films love a sequel. Especially a bad one.

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? Zelda Rubinstein; she’s a joy. The skelton jacuzzi. All the jelly.

What are the worst bits? It’s just a bit boring. I think the child was creepy enough that losing her to otherworldy forces could have been seen as a preferential situation. The special effects were probably quite decent for the time, but not exactly terrifying.

Did you say something about jelly? Yes. Possibly strawberry but, in my non-professional opinion, probably raspberry.