Review of The Conjuring 2 (2016) by Ni L — 15 Oct 2016

Spoilers.

More than usually, sequels exist as a paradox: they entertain and thrill better than the original, or the prior sequel, but on the basis of having devolved in some fashion. So whatever the nuance, and complexity of the previous film, the sequel will lose some of that identity yet at the benefit of improving its own.

I won't disagree with the essence of RT's official verdict, however, in technical terms I won't endorse it either - The Conjuring 2 is quite possibly the best movie ever made, at least in part because of its act of devolution relative to the first Conjuring.

Beating the likes of The Empire Strikes Back, The Fellowship of the Ring (the best LofR film), Halloween 6 (director's cut), The Force Awakens, Spectre, The Terminator, Alien, and possibly Inception, The Conjuring 2 fails to suffer from any of the sort of shortcomings that can hopelessly irritate or be perceived as corrupt - yes, it functions partly in lesser nuanced ways than Wan's first film, but for reason that's able to be a universal satisfaction. The representation of the Warren's, or rather their reality can and probably is intended as less humane, especially in the context of their link to the Hodgson family, yet the means is symbolism, and political allegory.

Unlike the original, which though possibly imbued with political meaning was more or less just obviously a straightforward ghost story, The Conjuring 2 is distinctly a story about metaphor - and what's important, in ways that only co-exist with the horror elements.

From the Amityville opening (a great sequence, meaningfully a bookend to the film's closing), to Janet's early encounters with the paranormal, to Lorraine's own encounters, with the nun, and then to the Warren's stay at the Hodgson home, and all subsequent events right to the end, TC2's greatness is its true ability to not just frighten, but to perplex the imagination because of the sense that the symbolism's usefulness is as much about being rejected by the rest of the movie as about being used - and now I'm reminded of the film's literal plot, and how the word use gets spoken again and again.

The central villain of the sequel, Valak, is a zenith combination of surface level terror, and political message: notwithstanding the catholic outfit, Valak's meaning is life's responsibility, pertaining to the moral insanity of nations, communities and money. Wan's sequel is about the excellent use of the visual motif of separation - showing people being separated from one another, whether the venue be the Amityville, Warren or Hodgson house. All of the scenes are scary, more scary than scenes in a lot of other famous horror films (examples being The Exorcist, Oculus, Scream, The Innocents, Insidious and Storm of the Century), and yet the suggested intent of this metaphor co-exists perfectly fine.

Like Spectre, the theatrical H6 and Inception, TC2 is the kind of film that isn't just universally accessible, but is an elite example of a film evolving into something that's definitively greater than a film: aided by its direction, its actors (specifically Madison Wolfe, who steals the movie), its music and its symbolism, TC2 is an all-encompassing life experience. The Hodgson house itself is the residence of the audience, and the fears and experiences of the Hodgson family are those of the audience too - Wolfe's Janet is a worthy protagonist ahead of those such as Laurie Strode, Indiana Jones, Ellen Ripley, Frodo Baggins and Watts' Ann Darrow, the former's connection to Ed and Lorraine being a meaningful story arc (again, a story arc defined by deep symbolism).

The hidden presence of Valak in Janet's life isn't accidental, it actually being a pivotal aspect of the storytelling that it's only ever Lorraine who encounters the true form of the demon (and it's at this point that I'll make special mention of the one and only exposure of the real Bill Wilkins, as he addresses Lorraine - TC2's status of filmmaking is exemplified by this third act encounter, the sadness of seeing and hearing the true face and voice of Wilkins being able to define the film); the hidden history of Lorraine's one-to-one meetings with Valak is a perfect example of TC2's political aspirations - its intent on presenting the condition of humanity.

If you take all of the most famous horror icons - Michael Myers, Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees, Leatherface, Jack Torrance, Pazuzu, Chucky - what exists is the sense that if not the literal character, the idea of TC2's Valak is a superior, and beyond realm of challenge - simply due to the imagery and scenarios involving Valak, not to mention the script's intelligence insofar as giving the demon the right amount of screen time, TC2's puppet-master can symbolise a final dimension of reality, one diametric yet equal to the dimension represented by TC2's Janet.

In terms of comparison to the original, TC2 doesn't have the equal complexity of reality, but again that's down to intent and symbolism. The scares in the sequel are the best of both worlds, being more frequent and to greater effect, specific reasons of the greater effect being the Warrens not being the only protagonists this time around.

In of itself, structure in TC2 is not exactly more apparent than in the Perron family's case, but the structure that is present in TC2 also works to be more effective. Time being taken to get the Warrens to the UK is a positive aspect, necessary because of the details and twist surrounding the story.

And to bring up the real Bill Wilkins revelation again: the twist's unfolding, showing Wilkins being subject to the nun's rule, then succeeded by Ed's having to be alone in the Hodgson house is storytelling at its most effective - even if it does exist at the expense of TC2 overall having to be a less nuanced version of reality than reality in The Conjuring.

Separated from Lorraine, and Janet nowhere to be found, the horror genre is absolutely done right by Ed's sequence of solitude (the Hodgson house at this climax renders the climax its own movie).

More particular, than other strengths of the film, but no less meaningful, TC2 has that quality of inversion: places which characters inhabit represent reality, but the skill of the cinematography and direction is to help the process of displaying the supernatural - as resonant the Hodgson house may be, including the neighbourhood it's part of, it's nevertheless able to accommodate the absurdity of the paranormal events, examples including Janet's transportations, the Crooked Man's few appearances, moving objects to finally the chaotic ending.

From more of a critical perspective, TC2 is still perhaps a script that could've been edited further - maybe more scenes with O'Connor's Peggy, and one or two extra scenes with Lorraine and Ed while at the Hodgson house (but again, perhaps the absence of these scenes is precisely to allow the intended symbolism - if not the Peggy ones, at least those concerning the Warrens). Nevertheless, TC2 is a very thoughtfully told story about faith and hope.

More amazingly, I can sort of accept the possible negatives of TC2 on the basis that they should exist even if they don't need to - the consequence of TC2 doing so well at reflecting the truth of confusion, and reality itself being a process of enlightenment.

A deeply political film - and trust me it is - The Conjuring 2 is the ultimate example of its genre; with this sequel, James Wan has no doubt become as great a filmmaker as Steven Spielberg, Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese, and Quentin Tarantino. Like any masterpiece of cinema, The Conjuring 2 is the ability of infinite meanings, yet never-ending invitation and functionality.

TC2 is a masterpiece of masterpieces.