It’s strange to see the same film again, but this time as a straight possession film. After seeing Evil Dead II a few years ago, I intended to watch the original, but it took me a while to get to it. And now I feel like a fool for not checking it out earlier. While Evil Dead II is brilliant in its own right, I’d strongly argue that The Evil Dead is a stronger and smarter film because writer/director Sam Rami has an expansive and powerful understanding of the horror film.
Take the protagonist of the film, Ashley “Ash” Williams (Bruce Campbell) is a complex and compelling mesh of two horror archetypes. In the context of the possession film, he’s the marginalized male, often left in the background and portrayed as inept and in some ways incapable of dealing with the situation. But his character also heavily draws on the idea of the final girl from slasher films, one who is in some ways attuned to the threat, but his effeminate name makes him reluctant to draw upon his masculine role.
The true star of the film is Sam Rami’s smart direction. His vision for many of the shots, a good handful of which are compelling and complex long takes, shows a vision and a smart eye that some of the most lauded directors tend to lack. The camera is just as important as what is being shown as it becomes an active participant in the film on many occasions.
This is because Sam Rami uses the point of view shot a lot. At this point, the technique was often seen as misogynistic in the horror film as it often aligned itself with the position of the killer. Rami subverts and complicates this idea by using POV shots from both the perspective of evil and the victim, often in the same scene, showing that is it a flexible technique that does not necessarily demand the audience allegiance.
This also gets into the idea of the gaze which Rami plays with a lot during the film both through the point of view shots and as part of the actual narrative. Sight quickly becomes a form of power as the evil often stalks its victims and possesses them unsuspectingly. For the characters, it also become important at repressing that evil as the gaze seems to avert and dissuade the evil.
But in the narrative itself, Sam Rami uses it to establish a great scene between two characters involving one character watching the other when they aren’t looking this play where the two seem to be testing each other with the gaze. This scene is mirrored later in a different context where it becomes much more potent and suspenseful.
The film suffers from its production values. Plenty of horror films have bad budgets, but The Evil Dead is a film that suffers from a lot of poor effects that the film simply didn’t have the resources to achieve. The ambition is to be admired, but the lack of budget ruins some of the more tense and creepy moments when the quality of the film image and the effects fail to be consistent.
Still, The Evil Dead is such a smart film it’s easy to overlook these shortcomings. While Evil Dead II is delightful in a different way, I think The Evil Dead easily surpasses it as the smarter, better executed film. It has a better understanding of the genre and a stronger sense of direction. Both rock, but The Evil Dead rocks harder.
© 2011 James Blake Ewing
16 Comments
Yes, it is a smart film for what it is. Had you asked me 10 years ago, I’d have said that the sequel was far superior in a lot of ways, but on further review, this is a better film than I ever gave it credit for being. Raimi was constrained by his lack of budget, but in many ways, the film is a testament to what can be done with almost no budget. There’s a tremendous amount of creativity evident in the filmmaking here. I think I like the sequel better, but I think this is the better film.
Yea, I initially thought there was no way it could be better than Evil Dead II, but it surprised me.
Evil Dead II is the last one I saw of the trilogy, and it’s the one i like the least. I still really liked it, but I don’t think it holds up to the other two.
And how could you not discuss the tree rape scene?
I’ve got no words for that scene.
I haven’t seen Army of Darkness yet, but from what I’ve seen it looks more like an action film which doesn’t grab me. I’ll check it out eventually.
I wouldn’t say “action,” per se. At least not in the way most people think of an action film. There’s action in it, definitely. I don’t know… I’d say it’s more like mixing Evil Dead 2 (it’s the same kind of humor) with, say… a grittier Monty Python’s Holy Grail.
the directing has to be the star, because the acting was terrible. I rewatched it after many years and realised that it was a lot cheaper than I remembered.
The acting certainly wasn’t up to snuff. But still, Bruce Campbell!
Nice review. Having just seen it myself I would tend to agree with what you have to say with the direction, though I haven’t seen the sequel (at home from Netfilx waiting on me to watch it). Also definitely agree that the budget is an issue given the effects. I think you definitely liked it more than me, but you point out some things about the genre in general that I just don’t know because of my inexperience with horror, so I struggled to be able to put it into context and be able to appreciate it from that perspective.
I think it’s a good thing that you saw this before the sequel. I think it’s better to see them that way even though both are essentially the exact same plot.
Nice review. I agree that Sam Raimi is the greatest star of the film and his visionary direction and shot selection is what makes it such a joy to watch. And Bruce Campbell is always fun. I prefer Evil Dead 2 because it’s more fun than this, but Evil Dead is the better horror film for sure.
For an added bonus you should track down Within the Woods, the thirty minute short Raimi and Campbell made to show investors. It’s nothing spectacular, but it’s interesting to see for Raimi fans.
Yea, Evil Dead II is probably more fun, but I think I appreciate this one more. They’re both two of the best horror films of the past 20 years.
Oh my god, I’m so happy you got to this one finally. I wondered if you were gonna like this movie over Part 2 and I’m glad you do. I think Part 1 is the smart horror movie whereas Part 2 and Army of Darkness are the goofy campy films. Can’t wait for the third item(s) on the list!
-Jason
Yea, the other two are certainly on the goofy side.
My review of Sleepaway Camp should be out in the next few days.
Excellent analysis (as always). While Evil Dead II is my favourite of the trilogy by virtue of it simply being the most fun, I do think you’re right that this is in a lot of ways a smarter film. Even the lack of budget doesn’t hurt it THAT much – I think the obvious practical effects give the movie a visceral edge.
I do think it would be worth discussing the infamous tree rape scene. Horror movies of this ilk are frequently criticized for their perceived mysogyny, and especially seeing as you’ve brought up gender roles already in the review, it probably should be mentioned.
I thought about tackling it, but I didn’t have a strong definitive view on the sequence. I suppose I could argue that for it to be a misogynistic rape, the possessive force would have to be coded male, but then why does it seem to be most potently manifested in the female characters? It would seem to undercut that misogyny if these female bodies then go on to emotionally torment and attack the males for the rest of the film.
And that’s all I wanted to hear
Actually I guess you could read it both ways. On the one hand the female characters are forcibly inhabited by the evil spirits, so that could be a metaphor for rape as well. But then you’re right, it’s the males who suffer the physical punishment throughout the movie.