Return to Silent Hill: the review

The French poster. "In my troubled dreams, I see this city."

Perhaps you've followed the massive shitstorm—as young people says—surrounding Return to Silent Hill. Since its release, the film has been racking up terrible reviews, scathing critiques, and bashing from SH fans (and others too) on social media. We all know how it works: one shot is all it takes to trigger a mob mentality. But is such hatred—and the word isn't too strong—deserved?

For some reason, perhaps out of sheer contrariness, but faced with so much injustice, I felt compelled to defend it. As usual, there will be some spoilers.

Twenty years later, back to Silent Hill

Development hell

Let's go back a bit to better understand the genesis of this project. In 2006, Christophe Gans adapted the first episode of the Silent Hill video game saga. This new reading of a cult game, in which a man searches for his daughter in a deserted town, was poorly received at the time, before later gaining recognition. The director did indeed take some liberties by swapping the character of Harry for a woman, opting for a parallel narrative between the "normal" town and the cursed town, and introducing characters who only appear in the sequel (Pyramid Head, the nurses, etc.).

It was indeed a reinterpretation, though one that respected the spirit of Silent Hill with its Freudian references (unheimlich, Eros and Thanatos...). However, no fan of the game is unaware that the creatures in the game are directly linked to the character's psyche. Using James' demons to torment a woman suffering from no neurosis therefore appeared to them as heresy.

Gans would later admit that he had already dreamed of adapting Silent Hill 2 as a psychological thriller (see Rosemary's Baby, The Tenant, or Jacob's Ladder). However, the horror film "trend" of the time dictated a certain pacing based on jump scares. Similarly, the studio demanded a male protagonist, hence the parallel montage with an investigation that broke the immersion. The first film thus served as exposition, with a touch of fan service, and in that respect, it fulfilled its purpose very well.

Twenty years and many setbacks later (including the death of his producer), Christophe Gans has only directed one film (Beauty and the Beast). A series of coincidences finally allowed him to shoot Silent Hill 2, a project he had dreamed of (or perhaps had nightmares about), but with a significantly reduced budget (less than the first film, not adjusted for inflation). However, a year of preparation gave him the confidence to make this sequel with a low budget.

James in his personal hell

OK, but is it really that bad?

Let's quickly review the criticisms leveled at the film: a confusing plot, it's not the same James as in the game, it's not scary, it looks cheap, the special effects are dated… Let's be honest: with a budget half that of the previous film, Gans is working in the realm of B-movie horror. Nevertheless, the initial reviews seem to reflect disappointed expectations of a literal adaptation of the game. But Return to Silent Hill, like Silent Hill itself, is a reinterpretation. The whole thing feels like a cryptic film, difficult to grasp on first viewing, and one that deserves some reflection.

James here becomes a somewhat arrogant artist, admittedly quite unlike the amorphous and whiny character from the game. It's worth remembering, however, that we know very little, if anything, about James' personality before his arrival in Silent Hill. Yet the purpose of an adaptation is to develop, delve deeper, and illuminate the gray areas. Gans therefore chooses to present his James as he was before being broken by his wife's death. He goes even further by revealing his meeting with Mary. The town, a character in its own right, is even presented to us in its heyday, bathed in daylight. The film thus reveals all the off-screen scenes from the game, where the goal is to be active by controlling a character, rather than passively being told a story. Different medium, different approach.

Insane in the brain

It should be noted here that Silent Hill 2 is based on a concept entirely independent of the first one., and what holds true for the game also holds true for the film. This is undoubtedly the biggest misunderstanding that has led to the wrath of a small community of toxic gamers. It concerns an aspect of James' personality, revealed during a final twist in the game, and more evident in the film.

Clearly: James is crazy, and the creatures he encounters are a representation of this madness. Watching James plunge down a staircase towards the woods of Silent Hill is reminiscent of Dante's descent into hell. Or rather, Orpheus, since here we're talking about a man who went to hell to find his wife. Except this hell is internal. In fact, you may have noticed that the changes in environment always begin within his body… Another hypothesis: he's dead, trapped in a purgatory time loop. This interpretation is quite clear in the game's remake (there's a corpse dressed like James, equipped with a map to help progress). Remember the trailer's tagline: "You live here, now…"

This is a mindscape, then. The story of a mad or dead man trapped in his own mind, materialized by a place, much like Jacob's Ladder or The Shining (whose labyrinth is echoed here). Gans understood this perfectly. Moreover, James doesn't seem to be aware of time, or of the fact that the girlfriend he's searching for is dead. When Mary asks him how long she's been ill, he seems lost and doesn't know what to say… Note in passing that the film's introduction sets the tone. In his car, James takes a 180° turn, indicating that he systematically goes back, just before his encounter with Mary.

Silent Hill: a story of looping

From this perspective, it's difficult to understand the criticisms regarding the narrative's confusion. The plot progresses logically and inexorably, through expositions and flashbacks (introduction of the James of the past, meeting the Mary of the past, exposition of the Silent Hill of the past, then of the James "at the end of his rope" of today, discovery of the letter, return to the Silent Hill of today…). The goal is not so much to tell a story as to push James' madness further. Gans himself defines his work as a "waking nightmare," more than a horror film.

But why is James called in by his therapist in the middle of exploring Silent Hill, thus breaking the viewer's immersion? Several critics found this intervention ridiculous. But imagine for a second James in a state of delirium in a doctor's office, facing a psychologist trying to bring him back to his senses! The kaleidoscopic imagery and the dialogue ("This is getting out of control, I need you to go home") are quite explicit.

James, prisoner of his madness

Mirror, my beautiful mirror...

Visually, Gans has lost none of his skill and employs a multitude of camera movements, whereas the first film was more static. But above all, he plays heavily on mirror effects, echoing the concept of Alice Through the Looking Glass. Reflections are omnipresent, the same shots are repeated in the Silent Hill of the past and present… Because, let's reiterate: the Silent Hill of today is a projection of James' troubled mind, a distorted reflection of the place he once knew. In other words, an off-world located behind the mirror. There, he repeats the same actions he performed during his "normal life" (cleaning the mirror), like a ghost unaware that he is dead.

The theme of the mirror and reflection, an omnipresent gimmick

A deliberately grotesque esthetic?

Therefore, the dreamlike, surreal, and absurd aspect attributed to certain scenes is somewhat nonsensical. It's no more so than a fever dream or the delirium of a schizophrenic. The explanation is perhaps a bit simplistic; we've already addressed budgetary issues… The scene where James discovers a woman resembling Mary, wearing an old wig, piling up sandbags in a cemetery is, indeed, ridiculous in itself. What is she trying to do? Stem the madness that is engulfing James' mind?

Now reconsider it as the hallucination of a psychotic, or the memory of a dead person: the symbolism is powerful, and the representation of reality is distorted… Note, by the way, that these bags bear a striking resemblance to the pillow with which James smothered Mary.

A vision from a bad dream

All this grotesque, grand guignolesque aspect of the film can thus (in my opinion) be attributed to the delusions of a depressed schizophrenic, or a ghost haunting the past. If I dared, I would draw a comparison with the kitschy aesthetic of Total Recall, which is "in reality" nothing more than the representation of a discount dream bought by Quaid. Or with Jacob's Ladder, a major inspiration for Silent Hill, so obvious is the connection.

Sure, James sees Mary everywhere with carnival wigs, or a sinister little girl dragging an equally sinister doll… But judging by his paintings, his mental universe seems "limited" and his imagination rather restricted. Suffice it to say, James' bad taste is reflected in his visions.

Mary seen by James

And Freud in all of this?

Another criticism: the film is less subtle than the game. Admittedly, Silent Hill 2 is a psychological game that is difficult to grasp. It took players years to understand Mary's dual nature as both mother and whore, the fact that Pyramid Head is James' double (in the film, he doesn't attack him but protects him from the spider woman), or that the sexy nurses represent his frustration as an abstinent husband (James spent his time around them in Mary's hospital, and his fantasies make him feel guilty).

Now you know

Certain scenes, such as the appearance of the Abstract Daddy or the concept of the time loop (a reference to Polanski's The Tenant), are indeed more explicit. Gans even goes so far as to prove to us that Pyramid Head is indeed James. All Silent Hill fans know that he embodies James' guilt, represented by the heaviness of his steps and the sword he drags like a ball and chain. We know that his appearance comes from a painting James once saw in Silent Hill. In the first film, Gans used him differently, as a phallic symbol, a sexual predator chasing two women.

The director has admitted that he wanted to make a film accessible to viewers who are unfamiliar with the game. The explanation of how Silent Hill works and the appearance of the creatures—which, remember, are projections of James' mind—are therefore more demonstrative.

Pyramid Head: a phallic symbol in the first film, and a symbol of guilt in the second

Monster parade

It should be noted that the monsters are entirely designed using “solid” elements (costumes and makeup). There is no CGI, and it must be acknowledged that they give rise to the most frightening scenes in the film. The nurses are chilling, not to mention the horrible Abstract Daddy already mentioned, which surpasses the one in the game in terms of the disgust it inspires. The spider woman is actually a direct reference to Yoshiaki Kawajiri's Wicked City, and not to The Thing as many people think. Brotherhood of the Wolf already featured several shots taken from the master of Japanese animation.

In this respect, criticizing the film for being too tame and not scary enough is a bit disingenuous, unless you're just jaded.

Don't bother looking for the reference, here it is: Wicked City, Yoshiaki Kawajiri (1987)

Saving Private Gans

Return to Silent Hill was thus perceived as a film where a guy wanders through deserted streets and corridors. Most of the time, nothing happens, and it's boring. Occasionally, improbable creatures or characters appear out of nowhere in a disjointed, puzzle-like plot. Furthermore, the dialogue is rather unbelievable and doesn't sound natural.

Well, if I wanted to be provocative, I would say that this pretty much sums up the original game (hence the need to “fill in the gaps” with flashbacks). At most, Gans can be criticized for interpreting the characters and situations as he saw fit, and for making some questionable artistic choices due to budget constraints.

However, let's be clear: the way James' arrival in Silent Hill is portrayed is more of a masterclass than a B movie. Gans takes his time, sets his own pace, refuses to take the easy way out, and, whether we like it or not, this introduction to the cursed town is a perfect transcription of what we have come to expect from an adaptation. This slow pace, almost devoid of music, breaks with the norms of the genre and undoubtedly did not help the film's reception.

The cursed trinity

Now that this brilliant argument is over, let's raise a few points for discussion.

Laura, the little girl (who looks very grown-up here), isn't meant to be a child from a macabre fairy tale. She embodies innocence and helps the player understand that a character free of guilt has nothing to fear in Silent Hill. Here, she is an avatar of Mary, and her doll seems to be a reference to an abortion or miscarriage. As it stands, she is most reminiscent of the character Newt from Aliens.

Furthermore, Gans saw fit to transform Angela into another avatar of Mary. However, this distinct character has her own (tragic) storyline and deserves to be treated separately. It seems, though, that he wanted to transpose her trauma (incest) onto Mary, to make her the central figure of all the female characters.

Maria, whose wig was much mocked, is a sexualized version of Mary. Another expression of James' frustration. Gans explained her "smooth" appearance as his desire to make her an unreal being, a kind of doll, an artificial being like the androids in Blade Runner.

In case it wasn't clear, the appearance of a tombstone listing all of Mary's identities (Laura/Angela/Mary), representing the various traumas of her life (childhood/adolescence/adulthood), demonstrates this. It's also on the list of grievances of SH fans.

According to this logic, there are no inhabitants or visitors in Silent Hill (apart from Eddie). Strangers have no place in James' psyche, since he doesn't know them! James only encounters the symbolic faces of Mary there. Representations of the traumas he "carries within him," in addition to his own. However, how can he know these traumas? We know he investigated his life (hence the importance of the flashbacks), so it's probably his own perception of it.

Finally, why exploit the lore of the city's cult and make Mary a sacrificial follower? To provide an explanation for James' hallucinatory journey, as we understand it (where the game leaves it out). To add a touch of psychological thriller, like Rosemary's Baby. And, incidentally, to tie in with the previous films. But once again, Return to Silent Hill is aimed at a wide audience who want answers to their questions before the end credits roll.

Furthermore, as the plot is told from James' point of view, one might wonder whether he invented this twisted story to justify his actions. He is convinced that Mary asked him to finish her off, even though this is not the case in the game... We know that the subconscious is capable of suppressing trauma and rewriting the past to protect the mind from madness. The hospital scene is very disturbing...

In short, Christophe Gans wanted to make Mary the central figure of the entire plot by rendering her omnipresent. And indeed, in James' troubled mind, she is everywhere, and yet paradoxically, he doesn't recognize her (an acknowledged reference to Vertigo). She is both the mother (Mary) and the lover (Mary Magdalene) guiding his path of suffering, his ordeal.

It should be noted that, in the game, we don't know any more about Mary than we do about James. If Gans had simply adapted it without adding anything, he would undoubtedly have been criticized for not developing the characters...

Who are you, Maria ?

In conclusion…

In all honesty, I found this Return to Silent Hill to be on par with the first film, and even more radical. It's no longer about telling a story, but about delving into the depths of a man's madness. Gans takes pains to blur the lines between time and place in order to better disorient us, hence the impression of confusion. In this respect, it definitely reminded me of The Shining (even if Gans is no Kubrick), which received the same kind of criticism when it was released (simplistic story and dialogue). In my humble opinion, it is regrettable and sad to see trashy horror films with dubious “morals” such as Saw or Terrifier being praised, while more thoughtful (albeit clumsy) works are trashed in this way.

There is already talk of a director's cut, which would further explore Christophe Gans' intentions. I don't know about you, but I can't wait to see it, and especially to hear the audio commentary explaining his choices.

There's no point in running away, you always come back to Silent Hill