|
|
Directed by Written by Based on the novel by Starring Rated R Presented by 91 minutes |
 |
||
 |
||||
|
THE
GIRL NEXT DOOR Review
When published in 1989, Jack Ketchum’s THE GIRL NEXT DOOR, based on the real life tragedy of Sylvia Likens, a young girl who was tortured repeatedly for three months while under the care of an adult, who let the neighborhood children in on the act. It was a shocking event that provided an outcry when Ketchum fictionalized it due to its graphic content. The book was adapted into a film, with mixed results. While it’s very shocking and unpleasant to watch, the film relies more on its shock value than breaking cinematic ground. The film revolves around David (played as an adult by William Atherton, the seminal 1980s prick), who after seeing a man hit by a car, recalls his youth and meeting Meg Loughlin (Blythe Auffarth), a 13 year old daughter of a gypsy left with her mother under the care of Ruth (Blanche Baker) and her sons. The young David (played by Daniel Manche) grows fond of his neighbors and Ruth, as she lets the boys drink beer, smoke cigarettes, and give them whatever they want. However, Ruth grows spiteful of Meg and her younger sister Susan (Madeline Taylor), crippled from polio. She starts with verbal abuse, and it soon turns into something more violent, as Ruth and her sons tie up Meg in the basement, and allow the neighborhood kids to torture her with cigarette burns, rape, and branding hot needles into her skin. David seems helpless, but slowly tries to find the courage to help her. I was angered by this film while watching it in many ways. Having read Ketchum’s novel and being privy to the facts of the real life crime (true crime is an interest of mine), I wasn’t too fond with the direction the film went from the book. The film starts out like any coming of age film, where David meets his new neighbors and the first act shows David’s induction into Ruth’s house. The second act begins the torture, and the third act is David’s belated reaction to do something about it. It is successful on the filmmakers to have me react so strongly every time Ruth and her sons appeared on screen, because I know that’s what they are going for. However, I felt that the process they used felt more exploitative than most. It shows in a scene before Meg’s torture, where Ruth punishes Susan by dropping her pants and spanking her with a toilet bowl cleaner. We only see a view from below the bed, where Susan lies, but to see her braces fall to the ground as each slap is heard just felt sickening. The slow torture of Meg was very unpleasant to watch, and just went to a level so far it became exploitative. I know this really happened, but it didn’t need to go to that level to show the point they needed to make. The performances in the film stand out, with Blythe Auffarth undeniably brave as Meg, giving one of the most gut wrenching performances I’ve seen in a film. It is her suffering that sells the film and she succeeds admirably. Not every actress would do this role, and she should be applauded. Blanche Baker is such an evil bitch as Ruth that she just made my stomach churn at her presence. Her sons were all played well as spoiled brats enjoying the evil acts they are doing, showing that children can prove to be as cruel as adults. Its one of the few themes the film did get right, as I think children are overprotected in today’s time and quickly dismissed as innocents. These kids make Stewie from FAMILY GUY look like Opie Taylor. William Atherton is good as the adult David, but his scenes feel out of place and don’t really provide any resolution. I’ve always liked Atherton as an actor, and I wish he had more to do. Where the film’s message betrays itself is in the making of on the DVD, where the filmmakers themselves admit they primarily made the film to make something just completely shocking, indicating that there was no intent to bring the real life story to light to show the dangers of child abuse and torture at the hands of the unproper suitor, but to elevate their own careers. Hey, there’s nothing wrong with trying to advance your career, but for a film like this where children are heavily featured, I’m unsure if this is the correct path to go on. If anything, this film has been put on quite a few Top Ten lists, and I’ve been told that since I’m not a parent myself, I don’t fully understand the impact of the film. I think that everyone’s opinion is different, and a film should be looked at from all points of view. My point of view is that while it is powerful, it wasn’t made for the reasons it should have, and that’s disappointing. Even though I am saying this, I am recommending the film because it should be viewed. In all, THE GIRL NEXT DOOR is a film that is one of the most shocking of the year and of the decade, as well as one of the most faithful adaptations put on screen. Considering the subject matter and the intent of the filmmakers, it’s disappointing that they could’ve gone so much further had they approached the subject a little more delicately. It’s well directed, brilliantly acted, and well written, but overall it’s a film not made for the right reasons, and made to exploit your anger at the shocking elements of the film rather than bring this harrowing subject matter to the attention it deserves. THE GIRL NEXT DOOR: 6 Out Of 10 Maggots
|
HOME
BLOGS
|
|||
