I’m a fan of horror flicks in all their guises (as if you folks hadn’t figured that out). Old silent films, ’70s exploitation, films from other cultures, and everything in between; Euro-horror, Asian ghost flicks, German expressionism, French gore…it’s all very appealing to me. Thus, when I was approached to check out Hungary’s first found-footage horror film…well, of course, I jumped at the chance.
Directed by József Gallai and Gergö Elekes, Bodom is an independent little POV flick from Elekes Pictures that’s received a lot of praise in Europe (it was an Official Selection of the Bram Stoker International Film Festival, among other honors), and in doing my research, I discovered that it was based around an actual event in history: the unsolved Bodom Lake murders in 1960. Given these two facts, I was very excited about the opportunity.
Annikki and Pietari were two students who set out in 2010 to work on a documentary about the murders at Lake Bodom in Finland on the fiftieth anniversary of the event. We the audience come into the story after it’s happened, with onscreen text and interview snippets from people like the teacher who gave the pair the assignment, Pietari’s brother, Annikki’s best friend, all establishing the background. It’s soon apparent that these two disappeared those four years ago, and what we are viewing is the footage from their cameras that was recovered by law enforcement, with more of these intercut tidbits and revelations from after-the-fact interviews at appropriate times. We learn that the students have history, both individually and as a couple, and that it wasn’t considered the best of ideas for the two of them to embark on this project together; Pietari has social issues and is a lackadaisical student, whereas Annikki is a dedicated, almost obsessed scholar, but is socially withdrawn and largely a loner, almost inevitably a result of her growing up as an orphan. We watch as the two make the journey to Espoo, Finland, to the shores of the maligned lake. They’ve rented a shack near the site, which they find (as is often the case) isn’t exactly what they had expected based on the internet ad.
Regardless, they’re determined to make the best of it, and once settled in make their way to Bodom to film some footage and maybe ask some other visitors their opinions of the half-century old mystery. They meet a couple of tourists that Pietari invites back to their shanty for drinks that evening, but when he and Annikki return, the first sign of something sinister is found in the form of a wooden watchman’s rattle they find on the stairs of the cottage; Annikki’s revelation that she’s been receiving these for months (since she’s been investigating the Lake Bodom murders, it’s hinted) is pretty unsettling; the answering rattle they hear from the woods when she uses it is doubly creepy. Undaunted (and believing the rattle and sound from the woods to be pranks), the pair receive their invited guests, but as the two young men get more and more drunk, Annikki becomes more and more agitated, revealing more and more of her past to first a guest then later to Pietari. As the night wears on, strange events accumulate, and before the sun rises much blood will be shed and many questions will be left unanswered…even the epilogue of the police investigation only serves to create more of a mystery…but don’t some secrets attract others?
This one starts out as a pretty by-the-book POV flick; students heading out to film a project of something mysterious. As a consequence, the film suffers from the same pitfalls as other films in this style; unavoidably slow-starting, with a lot of expositional stuff that tends to drag a bit; still, that’s the very nature of the methodology.
The acting compensates for a lot of this, however, with the two principal actors (Vivien Turzo as Annikki and Bence Kovacs as Pietari) delivering convincing performances with the thoughtful script; their dialogue is pretty darned believable, and you don’t have any problem accepting that they’re a pair with some rough water under the bridge. As the film goes on, a lot of the equipment’s limitations become apparent (some very dark, grainy scenes make you depend on the dialogue to understand what’s going on), but that too is a more realistic slant on the very concept of found footage. As we move into the latter parts of the film, a lot of the typical found footage tropes are tweaked somewhat, some for the better, some left a bit lacking. The overall plot is something that we’ve seen a variation on before, but this story seemed to be taking it in somewhat of a different direction; instead of investigating the crime itself, they were more interested in the long-term effect of the crime, almost exploring if the taint of the event continues to pollute the area even fifty years later. This becomes even more of a prevalent theme in the last quarter of the film; unfortunately, it’s not explored as completely or as satisfactorily as I would have liked, and I was left with far more questions than answers.
I still feel that this movie has a lot of merit; real talent is reflected in the people in front of and behind the camera, with the aforementioned impressive performances complementing the direction and clever editing. I’m sure that budget limitations were certainly a factor, and had they been able to extend the film’s sixty-five or so minute runtime to eighty or ninety, I feel certain that the fledgling twist that was touched upon could have been more thoroughly explored.
Still, I have to be up front with you Fellow Fans; if you’re looking for something with a clear-cut resolution, this one will leave you wanting; and for Pete’s sake, if you know you don’t like found footage, don’t watch it!
However, if you can dig a flick that leaves you pondering and filling in the blanks for yourself, then you just may want to give this one a whirl.
I personally don’t regret the hour or so I spent on it, and will certainly be watching for more work from these filmmakers.
–Mouse