The Amityville Horror & It's Remake.

Pick a Film and a Remake of that Film and Examine the Differences in Terms of Style and Your Aesthetic Response to the Remake

The Amityville Horror is a well-known title within the Horror genre and a large percentage of audiences will know the title, be them horror fans or not. The film(s) are based on the same titled novel by Jay Anson, which has been noted to be loosely based on the true homicidal event that happened to the Defoe family, in which eldest son Ronald Defoe Jr shot and killed his mother, father and the other four children of the Defoe family.

The Amityville Horror story has so far been created into ten films, excluding Andrew Jones’ The Amityville Asylum and British film Bloodbath at the House of Death (1984), which were spoofs of previous movies and just based on hauntings in Amityville, New York. Two noted films both the original The Amityville Horror (1979) and its 2005 remake of the same name are the two Amityville’s I will be analysing and comparing within this piece, looking at differences in style and narrative.

In 1979, just 5 years after the Defoe massacre, the first in what was to be many Amityville Horror movies was released. The movie was based on the characters and plot of Anson’s novel, following the Lutz family and the 28 days they lasted in the house, the plot unravels throughout the duration of the book and the movie tackling; religion, a breaking priest, spirits playing friends, strange eyes, burial grounds and chilling, manipulating voices from the unknown. Be that this movie was created in the late 70’s the style straight away in costumes and film quality is recognizably different to that of the quality of the 2005 remake. However, that gives the setting, soundtrack and even the actors, its authenticity, its realism.

The Amityville Horror released in ‘05 has a few similarities as well as differences to the ’79 film and one of them is the leading role; George Lutz was played by a man that a female audience could enjoy, even if they hated the film. Ryan Reynolds plays our George Lutz, for this generation that is enough for a large female audience, it made this twisted horror flick into a date movie which, depending on your age, could be a good or a bad thing. In the original we had the handsome and greatly bearded James Brolin, who was adored for his looks, if not anywhere else, definitely in this movie. These actors managed to make female viewers accept the fact he was becoming psychopathic and homicidal, it may have even made them feel safer due to his looks, his muscles, his authority, even though the role was almost both protagonist AND antagonistic. the remake was kept in the 70’s, (unlike Carrie (2013) in which they remade to be based in 2013 with technology, etc), so costumes and décor were styled to that decade have less authenticity than the original as it is faking the generation, yet there is some more realism in it due to more technology making the horror in Amityville a lot more chilling and throws it in front of you.

1979	2005
PSYCHOLOGICAL: This movie is like a lot of old classic horrors, the scares were filmed simply, with a small amount (if any) of effects. Especially with this film, a lot of the horror was left to the audiences imagination, allowing the audience to create their own mental images of the culprit or allowing them to decide just how crazy George was becoming, as parts of the roles are played subtly and sinister. Also there is a scene where the babysitter gets locked in the wardrobe which doesn’t have a lock on it, she is taken to hospital distraught and slightly crazy but we didn’t get to see what happened, so again it’s left to our imagination.	PSYCHOLOGICAL: This remake is less psychological I think, due to the act that its more violent, more dark and you actually have scenes with George fully attempting to kill the family. Also Jodie is a character that is one of the murder victims from the massacre who still haunts the house and befriends the youngest daughter (this character is in both movies) and is shown fully on screen. Carrying on with Jodie the scene where the babysitter becomes locked in the wardrobe and has an encounter with Jodie, we see her put her finger in her bullet wound, which proves my point of this one being more violent.
RELIGION: Religion is more of an obvious point in this original with Kathy Lutz instantly calling in a Priest to bless the house. This film is more about demons, hell and faith built evil. This film in general is more curse focused.	RELIGION: Religion is less played on in this remake as it takes Kathy getting scared to call a Priest in, as well as a scene with a nun running in fear. This movie is more about George’s mental state, murderous feeling, possession and echoes left from a horrible and realistic situation. In general this film is more murder and blood focused. "Houses don't kill people," says George Lutz (Ryan Reynolds) when he hears the gruesome history of his new home. "People kill people."
LIGHTING: This movie used lightning and the dark of night to create that horror atmosphere; it counts on the sinister feeling of nature’s weather and being in the dark. Obviously there are small aspects during the day time but those scares or psychological aspects are subtle.	LIGHTING: This film, when I first watched it at a young age, seemed to have this subtle green filter to it, which we find in films like Saw 2 it gives it that darker almost dirty feeling to it. This remake also relies on the dark nights as well as heavy rain and storms. However I do believe it had some aspects during the day that were slightly less subtle than that of the day scenes in the original.
EDITING: This movie again is like many old horrors it used music similar to The Shining and Psycho, that cutting high pitched sound. A lot of dramatic horror moments are where this film will use quick cut zoom in towards an important object or actors face. Also this film uses shots of the house a lot more than the remake, showing that the house is the most important character and it makes us think “What’s going on inside it now? How is it doing that?”	EDITING: This version had a more evolved, more dramatic sound to it, with a orchestrated soundtrack that created suspense or joy. Regarding camerawork it is almost more smooth, using trick of eye quick pans that still showed you the horror, the camerawork puts the actors more at the front of it, showing the change within George and the fear of his wife, not to mention the ghostly characters we see as clear as the breathing ones.
NARRATIVE: This movie follows the family and it’s fear, playing the house as the main role. It shows George slightly losing it and Kathy becoming constantly scared, mixed with demons and a helpless priest.	NARRATIVE: This movie follows the murderous side of a human if pushed so far, it shows echoes of murder and the lack of faith, as well as faithful help within that sort of place. Kathy is almost made the main character following her trying to get help and get out, fighting for her family and her life as the Lutz become more haunted and more consumed by darkness.

Reading some of these reviews I found that a large majority did not respect the original as a horror “Its success was largely due to canny marketing (did it really happen?) and the persistent appetite for downbeat kitchen-sink horror stoked by The Exorcist six years earlier.” As much as some people did love the original and the remake, a much larger percentage dislikes not just these films but the whole franchise, “The problem with "The Amityville Horror" is that, in a very real sense, there's nothing there. We watch two hours of people being frightened and dismayed, and we ask ourselves... what for? If it's real, let it have happened to them. Too bad, Lutzes! If it's made up, make it more entertaining. If they can't make up their minds... why should we?”

Now my opinion of these two movies is very high, although I do prefer the remake, I can respect the original as classic horror. The original was made in the same way as most horrors were made in the 70’s, it has those conventions that as a cinema lover I can respect and enjoy. However, with the remake I can enjoy it somewhat a bit more due to the wider range of technology and the image they created of this well-known story. I talked about the remake being more murder focused and I found that more entertaining. I feel that the original had left too much to the imagination and even though they show as much as they felt worthy the only scare I had was the ghostly voice yelling “GET OUT!” I feel comparing the two; it is a fight of suspense which the remake won as it caused me to feel tenser and more adrenalin.

In conclusion I found that when a film is remade they will take it further, it’s almost like this remake is not trying to be a good film but a scarier one. This is a topic that will always be debated and argued, no one will be fully satisfied when it comes to remaking a film. The narrative is strange with the remake because it has all the same characters and situations yet the way its filmed makes it completely different to the original, and although I mentioned I enjoy the remake I will never be able to answer whether its successful or better with a straight sentence.

VF.

REFERNCES:

The Amityville Horror, 1979. Dir. Stuart Rosenberg. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL PICTURES.

The Amityville Horror, 2005. Dir. Andrew Douglas. DIMENSION FILMS.

Amityville Asylum, 2013. Dir. Andrew Jones.

Bloodbath at the House of Death, 1984. Dir. Ray Cameron. GOLDFARB DISTRIBUTUION.

Carrie, 2013. Dir. Kimberly Peirce. SCREEN GEMS.

"Houses don't kill people," says George Lutz (Ryan Reynolds) when he hears the gruesome history of his new home. "People kill people." http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2005/04/13/the_amityville_horror_2005_review.shtml: Arendt, Paul BBC FILMS:  14^TH APRIL 2005.

Saw 2, 2005. Dir. Darren Lynn Bousman. LIONSGATE.

“Its success was largely due to canny marketing (did it really happen?) and the persistent appetite for downbeat kitchen-sink horror stoked by The Exorcist six years earlier.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2005/04/13/the_amityville_horror_2005_review.shtml: Arendt, Paul BBC FILMS:  14^TH APRIL 2005.

“The problem with "The Amityville Horror" is that, in a very real sense, there's nothing there. We watch two hours of people being frightened and dismayed, and we ask ourselves... what for? If it's real, let it have happened to them. Too bad, Lutzes! If it's made up, make it more entertaining. If they can't make up their minds... why should we?” http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-amityville-horror-1979: Ebert, Roger CHICAGO SUN-TIMES. 1^ST JANUARY 1979.