Crimson Peak

Crimson Peak's unmarketability is ultimately its greatest strength and weakness. On the one hand, a relatively high profile film that's hard to categorise incentivises more filmmakers to attempt challenging the status quo that regular genre conventions so often limit our palette with. On the other hand, people don't like shit that's challenging. That's the whole reason marketable genres exist in the first place. And make no mistake: Crimson Peak is a film that you can't categorise. It's even explained in the film: Edith Cushing (Mia Wasikowska) submits the new work on her novel only to be treated with skepticism when the publisher believes it to be a ghost story. "It's not a ghost story," Edith replies. "It's a story with ghosts in it." If we observe this thematically, the same results are present. Crimson Peak opens with the line, "Ghosts are real" and a wonderfully Guillermo del Toro-esque horror scene, before diving into a traditional 17th century romance. It's a film that wants it both ways, and once again, on one hand, I celebrate that. I can't recall the last time I saw a film like it, and on that alone, it's a success. But, on the other hand, how the fuck are you supposed to sell this film? It's too romantic to be categorised as a horror movie, but it's far too scary and violent to be categorised as a romance movie. In a perfect world, this wouldn't matter. Art would be freely available to make, and we could allow ourselves experiences with no preparation or prior perceptions. But we live in a world where art is a business, and as such, we're not going to see another Crimson Peak on this budgetary scale for a long time. We have to live with what we've got. Good thing Crimson Peak is a fucking winner, then.

I've said before that the best horror is that which reflects upon us what it means to be human. Crimson Peak technically isn't a horror movie, but it understands this principle more than most. The writing is on the wall as the film progresses. Guillermo del Toro isn't often lauded for his storytelling ability, which makes his leaning into gothic romance tropes all the more effective. We know as soon as the Sharpe siblings, Thomas (Tom Hiddleston) and Lucille (Jessica Chastain), are introduced that they're not the most straight and narrow folk. And as Edith continues to fall harder and harder for Thomas, and he for her, we know where this is going. But that's okay, because where Guillermo del Toro's strength does not lie in surprising story beats, it does lie in surprising moments of character. He deliberately subverts the damsel in distress trope by introducing and developing the traditional handsome hero, here in the form of Dr. Alan McMichael (Charlie Hunnam), who rushes to Edith's rescue at the first sniff of danger, only to have the stupid dork be stabbed in the stomach as soon as he walks through the door, leaving it up to Edith to save him. What makes the moment all the more surprising, however, is what comes before it. We get sniffs and hints that Thomas and Lucille's continuous plot to seduce young heirs into marriage before murdering them beneath the cloak of darkness and running away with the money is more Lucille's game than Thomas's, and over the course of time there are more than enough signposts to indicate he's actually fallen in love with Edith, but it comes through at its strongest when Thomas is the one to stab Alan. Whispering low enough so only the two of them can hear, he says, "You're a doctor. Tell me where." Alan delicately grabs Thomas's hand and shifts the blade to a non-lethal area, and with extreme pity in his eyes, Thomas drives the blade in. You could call him a monster, but it's a little more complicated than that. There are shades to him, you know, just like human beings. Even his sister, inarguably the more moustache-twirly of the two, muddies the waters of easy categorisation. Jessica Chastain knocks it so far out of the fucking park with this role, crafting a villain that is at once tragic and hilariously over the top. At times, this happens simultaneously; a perfect example being when she's feeding bed-ridden Edith porridge. As she details the awful, repugnant acts of her parents during their upbringing, she draws the spoon across the bowl at an agonisingly slow pace, creating a cacophonus crescendo of screeches, her steely eyes full of hatred never leaving Edith's. It's a beautifully absurd moment that also gives insight into the extreme pain of these characters, and makes it that little bit harder to not empathise with the siblings' plot to kill rich girls and keep fucking each other. When the world fucked them over this hard, why should they see any benefit in being a part of it? Thomas can't follow Lucille to the end this time, though. He pleads with her to let Edith live, and for the three of them to exist in harmony together, and Lucille responds by flying into a hurt rage, and stabbing Thomas in the face. As he dies, and two tears fall from his eyes, one clear and the other tinted red, your heart breaks - not just for the fucking mindblowingly cool imagery, and not just for what this means for Edith and Thomas, but for what this means for Thomas and Lucille. Once again, you could call Lucille a monster, but it's a little more complicated than that. She is human, after all.

And now that the stupid emotional shit is out of the way, let's talk about the other thing that Guillermo del Toro does better than anyone else: set design. Holy shit. This is a film soaked in blood as far as narratives go, but Guillermo takes it one step further by putting the Sharpe estate on overflowing red clay mines. When Thomas introduces Edith to her new home, he warns of the clay and demonstrates by stepping on a loose floorboard. The thick, red goop oozes and spreads around them. The house literally fucking bleeds. And as the film progresses, and shit gets wackier, nobody seems to notice that the red clay is coming out of every fucking hole it can. The bright red material twisting and snaking around the detailed tapestry of the Victorian mansion is a testament to the strength of practical set building. There's an unrelenting sense of a primal savagery lurking just below the surface, that intensifies and becomes more literal as the characters succumb to their baser instincts. The animalistic connotations that come with the colour red sink into the ghosts themselves, too. In this universe, spirits come to be through emotional resonance left behind in death. And considering in this universe it's unusual to not have at least one family member who was murdered through unclear, yet clearly passionate, motivations, it makes sense that each ghost's remaining emotional resonance is that of a blind rage. They don't speak English, opting instead to communicate through a series of clicks, howls and growls, and navigate their environments with a twitchy, violent anger. Those that aren't left behind with the grumps are no more subtle, either, a perfect example being the spirit of Thomas that appears in the film's climax; sporting a look of pure sorrow as each tear lifts off his face and floats upwards into nothingness. But, as I've said so much now, how are you supposed to sell this film? It's proof that genre hopping is perfectly acceptable so long as your aesthetic is clearly defined and adhered to, but what general audience-goer, who only has time and money for one film a month, is going to pony up for a film that can't even tell them what it is? Crimson Peak is exactly what I look for in cinema, and I'm glad that it exists. But I won't be surprised when I never see something like it again.