"Vulgar auteurism" is a thing, right? I don't pretend to keep up with the nuances of modern film discourse or whether or not we're pro-or-anti auteur theory at a given moment (personally I'm deeply ambivalent about the topic), but as I understand it it's usually used to refer to someone who prioritizes visual style and spectacle over thematic content and substance. Well, does it count if the director in question is literally the blandest, least interesting, most by-the-numbers and safe you could possibly get? So much so that it actually loops around and becomes kinda interesting in an ironic, detached way?
Most people would call these people hacks and they're probably right, but I find John Leonetti's particular idiosyncrasies (that being the complete absence of any whatsoever) to be oddly fascinating. This is a man with no style whatsoever, a man with only the most basic sense of visual storytelling (no doubt inherited from a long, fruitful career of cinematography) who stages, shoots, and cuts every single thing in the most elementary way possible. Even the first OUIJA had a messy behind-the-scenes story to keep my attention. WISH UPON had nothing. Absolutely nothing. So much nothing that it started to draw me in.
WISH UPON is a movie made from other (not necessarily better) movies. It's story, characters, setpieces, jokes, locations, and even needle drops are all borrowed from any myriad of films and tv shows of the past 25 years. It's flatly-lit, sterile Toronto locations are every CW show or Lifetime Original Movie of the last decade. It's performances, by good actors who can and have done better, are just repeating gestures and readings done elsewhere by others. It's target audience is that nebulously-defined but highly-profitable 13-19 demographic more in search of something to do with friends than a particularly good horror movie. It's film that's had every single piece of its identity stripped away from it and replaced by something else, creating an incongruent Frankenstein that's less than the some of its parts. And yet...
I think it's the cast, in part. A pre-STRANGER THINGS Shannon Purser in a thankless third-tier supporting part that stands out by how little she's given to do (never has it been more apparent of when a film was shot before an actor got big, but released afterward). Sherilyn Fenn in an equally thankless part that nonetheless seems to recognize that "Hey, this is Sherilyn Fenn, you all know and love her you 15% of our demographic". Jerry O'Connell in a (almost literal) blink-and-youll-miss-it cameo that seems to indicate either a deleted scene or a friendship with a castmate. The sister of Katharine Langford, who doesn't look enough like her sibling for you to mistake her for her, but with enough of a resemblance to trigger some kind of low-key uncanny valley effect.
Maybe it's also the hilariously ungainly MacGuffin, a piece of art direction so oversized and poorly-designed that I wouldn't be surprised if it was just some random prop fished out of a warehouse the day before principal photograph. Note that Chinese wish boxes aren't a thing, that hulking mass the movie decided to make it's Cenobite Puzzle Box was entirely the conscious, deliberate creation of the filmmakers.
Maybe it's how much the film reminds me of an episode of Goosebumps (not the original series, one of the off-brand revivals from the past five years) in its premise, characters, and execution; with any semblance of campy charm stripped away and the threadbare story strung out to a feature runtime.
Or maybe I'm just going stir-crazy from the world falling apart, and I'm grasping at straws trying to cling to something while the overwhelming tide of unimaginable injustice and chaos subsumes everything I or anyone else has ever known. Who knows.
Happy Halloween y'all.
Most people would call these people hacks and they're probably right, but I find John Leonetti's particular idiosyncrasies (that being the complete absence of any whatsoever) to be oddly fascinating. This is a man with no style whatsoever, a man with only the most basic sense of visual storytelling (no doubt inherited from a long, fruitful career of cinematography) who stages, shoots, and cuts every single thing in the most elementary way possible. Even the first OUIJA had a messy behind-the-scenes story to keep my attention. WISH UPON had nothing. Absolutely nothing. So much nothing that it started to draw me in.
WISH UPON is a movie made from other (not necessarily better) movies. It's story, characters, setpieces, jokes, locations, and even needle drops are all borrowed from any myriad of films and tv shows of the past 25 years. It's flatly-lit, sterile Toronto locations are every CW show or Lifetime Original Movie of the last decade. It's performances, by good actors who can and have done better, are just repeating gestures and readings done elsewhere by others. It's target audience is that nebulously-defined but highly-profitable 13-19 demographic more in search of something to do with friends than a particularly good horror movie. It's film that's had every single piece of its identity stripped away from it and replaced by something else, creating an incongruent Frankenstein that's less than the some of its parts. And yet...
I think it's the cast, in part. A pre-STRANGER THINGS Shannon Purser in a thankless third-tier supporting part that stands out by how little she's given to do (never has it been more apparent of when a film was shot before an actor got big, but released afterward). Sherilyn Fenn in an equally thankless part that nonetheless seems to recognize that "Hey, this is Sherilyn Fenn, you all know and love her you 15% of our demographic". Jerry O'Connell in a (almost literal) blink-and-youll-miss-it cameo that seems to indicate either a deleted scene or a friendship with a castmate. The sister of Katharine Langford, who doesn't look enough like her sibling for you to mistake her for her, but with enough of a resemblance to trigger some kind of low-key uncanny valley effect.
Maybe it's also the hilariously ungainly MacGuffin, a piece of art direction so oversized and poorly-designed that I wouldn't be surprised if it was just some random prop fished out of a warehouse the day before principal photograph. Note that Chinese wish boxes aren't a thing, that hulking mass the movie decided to make it's Cenobite Puzzle Box was entirely the conscious, deliberate creation of the filmmakers.
Maybe it's how much the film reminds me of an episode of Goosebumps (not the original series, one of the off-brand revivals from the past five years) in its premise, characters, and execution; with any semblance of campy charm stripped away and the threadbare story strung out to a feature runtime.
Or maybe I'm just going stir-crazy from the world falling apart, and I'm grasping at straws trying to cling to something while the overwhelming tide of unimaginable injustice and chaos subsumes everything I or anyone else has ever known. Who knows.
Happy Halloween y'all.
Tell Your Friends