PEARL (2022)

Studio:     A24
Director:    Ti West
Writer:     Ti West, Mia Goth
Producer:  Kevin Turen, Harrison Kreiss, Jacob Jaffke, Ti West
Stars:     Mia Goth, David Corenswet, Tandi Wright, Matthew Sunderland, Emma Jenkins-Purro

Review Score:


Summary:

In 1918, a psychologically disturbed woman with dreams of escaping to stardom confronts the macabre realities of a suffocating life on her family’s farm.


Synopsis:     

Review:

Although it landed on a few lists of 2022’s best horror movies, I felt Ti West’s “X” (review here) was merely a mediocre slasher missing outstanding oomph. Being a longtime fan of West’s films, this frustrated me. I really wanted to see what others thought was so special in something I only found to be ordinary.

Now that I’ve seen “Pearl,” West’s follow-up prequel that serves as an offshoot origin for “X’s” killer, I once again wish I’d appreciated the first film the way its admirers do. Because as much as I enjoyed “Pearl,” I think its uniquely weird flavor would have hit my tongue even harder if I didn’t have “X’s” plain taste already in my mouth beforehand.

“Pearl” shouldn’t work as well as it does for a number of reasons. The first has to do with how the project came to be. When West and company went to New Zealand to shoot “X” in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, they had to quarantine in their hotel for two weeks first. West and Mia Goth, who plays the title character, passed part of that time by trading musings about Pearl’s background. That turned into the two of them hammering out an entire script based on what they imagined for Pearl’s life prior to events in “X.” Looking to get the most economical use out of stages that had already been built, West then went to A24 with a pitch that convinced them to make a second movie before they’d even filmed a single frame of the first. Shot in secret after “X” was in the can, “Pearl” basically went from initial idea to production wrap in a matter of mere weeks.

A cynic could justifiably consider “Pearl” to be a bit of a lark built out of boredom, improvisation, and serendipity as opposed to being from a carefully planned blueprint for a multilayered feature. Someone else could then counter that West and Goth nevertheless happened to harness a little lucky lightning out of circumstance, spontaneity, and streams of consciousness.

Set in 1918, and lensed to look like a vibrant musical from Hollywood’s Golden Age, “Pearl’s” various palettes, from visual hues to overarching themes, parallel “The Wizard of Oz,” if Dorothy took to humping the Scarecrow while he was still inanimate. Initially, “Pearl’s” buoyant colors and artificial building facades come off as too fake. Quickly, however, that atmosphere of cheery exteriors painted over dark interiors comes to precisely mirror the war being waged within Pearl. While not cartoonish, “Pearl’s” slightly exaggerated fantasy setting tinges the tale with dreaminess, then nightmarishness, that lends itself well to the movie’s unusual texture.

A character study through and through, yet one whose vast vistas make it feel wide open instead of like a stuffy theater drama, “Pearl” peels, picks, and pokes at a person perhaps destined, or doomed, to become a serial killer due to nature as well as nurture. Sending strong Mother Superior from “Silent Night, Deadly Night” (review here) vibes, Pearl’s abusive German mother runs a tight ship on their family’s farm. While her husband Howard fights in the war overseas, Pearl hopelessly helps out at the house by tending to barnyard animals, following mama’s orders, and caring for her catatonic father. It’s no wonder Pearl yearns to escape to a more promising life, and she fuels those desires with trips to the movies where she can fantasize about becoming a chorus girl the way some kids consider running away to the circus.

Pearl has a couple of prospects. The local theater’s projectionist takes an interest in Pearl. She’s a little naïve to his overtly salacious intimations, maybe, although it’s equally likely her marriage is the only thing stopping her from reciprocating his sexually suggestive advances. Pearl’s sister-in-law also has the scoop on an upcoming audition to join a traveling troupe of dancers. Mama would never allow such nonsense, but Pearl thinks this could be the break she’s been longing for.

Flights of fancy and harsh realities soon collide in ways Pearl’s mind isn’t equipped for handling. Instead, Pearl handles her problems with pitchforks, axes, and by regressing further inside the fractured family fantasy she’s created in order to be compliant and complacent. Horror hounds may not get gore or gruesomeness in amounts equal to “X.” In place of plentiful visceral thrills, they witness something more shocking: the terrifying transformation of an everyday nobody who becomes psychologically broken by broken dreams.

“Pearl” may move even more slowly than “X,” though it moves deliberately, with poignant ponderings aimed at stimulating the psyche. “X” hid some of these musings under the appearance of a standard slasher, except “X” barely scratched the skin compared to where “Pearl” takes similar ideas related to the conception of Pearl’s personality. Rather than rely mostly on murder to make its mood macabre, “Pearl” wrings tension out of long takes, shouting matches, and impassioned monologues. Such scenes are so heartbreakingly relatable in addition to being horrifying that “Pearl” becomes, surprisingly, an emotionally rich vicarious experience, which is something seldom seen in horror cinema.

As said earlier, “Pearl” shouldn’t work for a number of reasons, mostly related to its hurried genesis. In a certain light, it may not work well at all. Oddly enough, that light is as a companion piece to “X,” which “Pearl” was expressly created to be.

From a cinephile’s perspective, it’s intriguing that the two films are disparate in tone and narrative purpose. Yet it’s concurrently distracting that “Pearl” retroactively sets up a comparatively routine story, and one that’s not nearly as interesting or as focused as the one told here. That natural link primes “Pearl” as a seemingly ideal pairing with “X” as a double feature, although I’m not so sure. I have no desire to revisit the two movies in chronological order, but my memory of “X” assures me that its slightness may feel even weaker in light of the engaging depths “Pearl” plumbs.

Review Score: 80