By WARREN DAY

Just-released, “The Woman in Black” starring Daniel Radcliffe (none other than Harry Potter himself) is a throwback to an older form, a classic Victorian ghost story in the grand tradition, something that’s been missing from the screen for a long time. The Haunted House in cinema dates back at least to “The Old Dark House” from 1932, which was directed by the openly-gay James Whale, who also did the original “Frankenstein,” and what many consider to be the greatest horror film of all time, “The Bride of Frankenstein.”

In “Woman,” Radcliffe plays London lawyer Arthur Kipps. Kipps is on shaky terms with his strict employer because of his lackluster performance since the death of his wife in childbirth. Her passing left him with a son who’s now four years old (yes, Harry Potter has definitely grown-up).

Kipps is dispatched to the remote southeast coast of England to close out the accounts of a highly reclusive and recently deceased client. For years she lived alone in a decaying mansion called Eel Marsh House, located about 800 feet off the coast on a rise of land only reachable at low tides. The nearby village residents aren’t happy to welcome an outsider. It becomes apparent that they are harboring secrets about the old house, which is surrounded by marshes and tidal pools. Kipps hears strange noises and catches a fleeting glimpse of a woman in black amidst the family tombstones.

You can see why I called it a classic Victorian ghost story, even though the novel was written in 1983, and a stage version has continuously performed in London since 1989, making it the second longest running play in the West End (Agatha Christie’s “The Mousetrap” has been running since 1952).

The movie, as well as the novel and play, are old-fashioned, and I mean that as a compliment. It has what most horror films have been lacking for the last decade or more: it’s subtle and more suggestive than literal in its depictions of things that go bump in the night. In other words, it’s more of a chiller than a thriller, which may go against the A.D.D.-inspired grain of what audiences expect today.

As in all good ghost stories, the fascination is in the back story: why does the title’s eponymous and nameless woman haunt Eel Marsh House, and why does a child in the village die every time she’s seen?
Daniel Radcliffe handles himself well, but the director sometimes confuses being startled with being scared, and more of the back story from the novel would have–forgive the pun–fleshed out the ghosts. In the end, this film may not be as scary as a Kardashian family reunion, but thanks to the acting, production design, and photography, it is a lot more real. H

Send comments and questions to AgendaReviews@aol.com

Warren Day

WHY DO GAY MEN & LESBIANS LOVE SCARY MOVIES?

Gay men and lesbians seem to have a higher degree of fascination with horror movies than their straight counterparts.  If you doubt this, then just ask any studio marketing executive. What is less clear is “why?”

Some people suggest it’s our identity with those who’ve been labeled by society as outsiders and “not normal,” and certainly vampires, werewolves, and ghouls have had that experience. Others say it’s the genre’s sense of style and flamboyance, with its emphasis on mood and atmosphere, where the décor is part and parcel of the drama.

Or maybe it’s because from the beginning they’ve contained a noticeable gay sensibility in both the front and back of the camera, the one genre in the art form’s early years where you might spot a gay character, such as Doctor Pretorius in 1935’s “Bride of Frankenstein,” or Countess Zaleska in 1936’s “Dracula’s Daughter.” Remember: those performances occurred during the height of the studios’ Production Code era, when any depiction of homosexuality was strictly forbidden. Yet somehow they could blend the characters into these films, where almost no one depicted was “normal.”

What’s clear is that in recent years horror movies have been rather, well, horrible. Mainly, they’ve solidified themselves into two rigid categories: the “faux documentary,” to which the “The Blair Witch Project” gave birth, only to continue with such films as “Paranormal Activity (I and II);” and the much more prolific sub-genre of “splatter films” where the goal is to shock (or sicken) you more than scare you, and where the blood and guts flow like beer at a Super Bowl party. These films include “The Ring,” “Hostel,” “Saw,” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street,” and like the villains they depict, these films continue to xeroxing themselves into endless replicas. We’re even on the verge of a “Friday the 13th, Part 13”.

Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed, and then BOO!