MovieChat Forums > Mama (2013) Discussion > Turn the bl**dy lights on

Turn the bl**dy lights on

posted 8 years ago by svenrufus
12 replies | jump to latest

I get how what is not seen can be scarier than what a film chooses to show you - the power of the imagination is so strong, I've literally been unable to watch some scenes in certai films because they played with my inner fears so effectively.

But there is a line that can be crossed where what is hidden becomes so obscure it has no impact at all. In this case, the whole film was made so gloomy, that the hints and suggestions of something dark, something terrible in the house were lost in the shadows. I literally couldn't see anything to even suggest I should be scared, let alone feel the fear. There were a couple of moments when the set up made the hairs on my neck stand up, but then that was lost as the scene develops and I'm just left thinking 'What? What are you trying to do here?'.

It feels like this should have been more effective, but I was actally really quite bored in the end.

[–] SCTwins 8 years ago

I'm not sure what you mean. Not trying to be a jerk or anything, but could it have been the settings on your TV?

The movie was a bit dark, but I had no problem seeing everything that was going on.

[–] svenrufus 8 years ago

Ha! No, the telly is fine thanks! :^) I've actually got it a bit brighter than I might ordinarily at the moment as my daughter is going through a Harry Potter phase and trying to watch the darker sections of these films during daytime can be quite a struggle, especially on these newfangled LCD TV's.

It was at it's worst earlier on in the film as I recall, the bits where they find the girls, and they are scutling around the house, on top or under things - a few times it was barely discernible that there was anything there. Clearly they were going for the 'seen but hidden' thing and at times, such as with Mama moving about across doorways etc, it was pretty effective, but it felt to me like they just got a bit carried away. The outdoor scenes were dark, but worked ok - but for me the film strugggled to engage in both the house where the girls were found and the one where they took them later.

[–] steelhelix 8 years ago

No, it's definitely your TV.

There were so many scenes where they actually SHOWED "the monster" that I was astounded the film had any tension at all. If it hadn't been done half as well it would have just been a creature flick because the real "monster" gets so much screen time. I don't remember the last time that a scary film showed "the monster" so often and had any sort of sense of real dread.

Because of the very nature of "the monster" it was in dark places but they got their editing correct.

Your TV is adjusted improperly. You should consider turning up your own lights.

[–] vidville-69614 8 years ago

your eyes maybe?

[–] knoxfan2008 8 years ago

No OP is right, the cinematography of this film was cheap and blue-tinted. Why would you interview little girls in a room that was almost completely dark? It's a cheap childish excuse for bad film-making

[–] Gandolph_Lundgren 8 years ago

No the OP is not right.

Why would you interview little girls in a room that was almost completely dark?

Because they have been living in a dark cabin for 5 years and would need time to adjust to light.

[–] knoxfan2008 8 years ago

They haven't been living in a dark cabin, they have clearly had the ability to go outside the cabin. Plus the cabin had massive windows to allow heaps of light through. The seeds were in the corner of the room, and in that spot there was plenty of light, nowhere enough to damage their eyes to a point of permanent damage. Also, if that was the case, then why are they in light areas later in the film if it's a consistent permanent thing? Sorry dude, it's a contrived meaningless decision in a crap film

[–] Gandolph_Lundgren 8 years ago

They haven't been living in a dark cabin, they have clearly had the ability to go outside the cabin.

Where do you see them outside the cabin after they arrive with the dad?

Also, if that was the case, then why are they in light areas later in the film if it's a consistent permanent thing?

"Because they have been living in a dark cabin for 5 years and would need time to adjust to light"

Where do I say there that it is a permanent thing?

[–] knoxfan2008 8 years ago

Where do you see them outside the cabin after they arrive with the dad?

Where did you see the evidence that they were solely in that cabin for 5 years? And never went outside? Where did they get the fruit and food from huh? They clearly would've gone out. And again, as mentioned before. The cabin wasn't so dark it would ruin your eyes.

It was a cheap plot device.

[–] BrainGirl78 7 years ago

The kids drew pictures on the walls of them outside and inside, so they weren't just in the cabin.

[–] BrainGirl78 7 years ago

The dark room that the girl was in with doctor was him doing hypnotherapy on her, so the lighting was lower. I was involved with a hypnotherapist during my 6weeks of Psychology rotation in medical school, and the lights are lowered, but not like in this movie. When Annabelle watches the session on the laptop, you can only see Victoria's mouth, and occasionally the light shown off her eyes.

I agree with the OP, as the entire film had a darkened color. I just watched it on my iPad and kept checking that my night shift setting hadn't turned on - I had the iPad set to the highest brightness, so it was the film. I am guessing the lighting was tweeted in post production to give it an overall blue/gray look. The parts that were bright, like driving in the daytime, were at a normal brightness though.

[–] VivienCastro 7 years ago

Really? I was actually surprised how much of her they showed. It was a lot. I'd even reduce it some more.