Estudio de casos

From early in its production stage, it was clear that the main selling point of The Watcher in the Woods was going to be its affiliation with the horror genre. Co-producer Tom Leetch, the first to become interested in adapting Florence Engel Randall’s novel, pitched it to executive producer Ron Miller with an enthusiastic “This could be our Exorcist,”112 _{and Miller in turn spoke to the press with} excitement: “We’re going to scare the hell out of them this summer with a sort of horror story, ‘Watcher in the Woods.’”113 _{To achieve this, Miller populated the film’s production with experienced} horror people: John Hough to direct, who had previously done horror and suspense in Eyewitness (1970), Twins of Evil (1971), which he directed for the famous Hammer studios, and The Legend of Hell House (1973); and to star, Bette Davis, who had built a strong connection with horror in the 1960s and 1970s with films such as the vastly successful What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (Robert Aldrich, 1962) and its sequel Hush… Hush, Sweet Charlotte (Robert Aldrich, 1964), the Hammer production The Nanny (Seth Holt, 1965) and some television work in Scream, Pretty Peggy (Gordon Hessler, 1973) and the mini-series The Dark Secret of Harvest Home (Universal TV, 1978). Additional stars included the young Kyle Richards, who played a part in Halloween (John Carpenter, 1978), and

112 _{Bosco, "The Watcher in the Woods: The Mystery Behind the Mystery."}

53 David McCallum, who was not a horror actor but had recently starred in Frankenstein: The True Story (Jack Smight, 1973).

Moreover, not only did the film share a location with horror classic The Haunting (Robert Wise, 1963), one of its other locations was also allegedly haunted, a detail the press kit emphasised to reporters — the film was billed as “one of the most haunting and powerful mysteries ever created by Walt Disney Productions.”114 _{The posters promised “a masterpiece of suspense!” and featured a} ghostly face haunting the eerie woods. Some displayed the line “It is not a fairy tale” — repeated also in the trailers’ ominous narration, played over the film’s most suspenseful images and the sound of violins. This promotional emphasis implies a strong confidence on Disney’s part that the horror elements would successfully sell the film. The reality of the production, however, tells a different story — of doubt, reluctance and much struggle. In a retrospective piece for Sight and Sound, Joseph Stannard wrote of the tales “of tension on the set involving an irritable Bette Davis, nervous

executives and an embattled director.”115 _{Further details were delivered by journalist Scott Michael} Bosco, who provided research for the DVD release of The Watcher in the Woods and was a personal friend of producer Tom Leetch. In his tell-all online account of The Watcher’s history, Bosco revealed how he “learned from cast members of the tenuous atmosphere which existed during the

production,” and accused Ron Miller of having “constantly interfered with the filming of scenes, afraid of their intensity. […] Co-producer Leetch would come head to head with Miller fighting for his vision while director John Hough would step aside. […] Since Miller was head of the studio, he won his way.”116

Director John Hough told a slightly different version of the events: “I’ve got no complaints against Disney whatsoever. It was pure circumstance that worked against me [in making the film

114 _{Cheri Dubey, "The Watcher in the Woods" Production Notes (1980), http://docslide.us/documents/the-} watcher-in-the-woods-press-kit.html.

115 _{Stannard, "Out of the Woods."}

54 unsuccessful].”117 _{In his commentary of the film, Hough never mentions interference from the studio} or the producers, although actress Carroll Baker has stated that “he was working under an awful lot of pressure.”118 _{In response to Hough’s comments, Bosco wrote: “He is being cordial, I don’t have to} be. I’ve never been on their payroll. Besides, even if he were [honest] his words would have been edited, as was my writing [for the Anchor Bay DVD booklet].”119 _{In support to Bosco’s claims, there is} indeed a sense of regret in Hough’s commentary, as the director repeatedly talks about

“circumstance” working against him, particularly where the ending was concerned — Hough was never consulted about those changes.120 _{“I still feel now if I could get that footage of the alien} [claimed lost by Disney],” Hough said sorrowfully for the DVD release. “I could still make this alien work. It took me quite a while to get over this.”121

Intrigue aside, there are several known instances of changes imposed to the script and on set which can be attributed to Ron Miller, as well as evidence of his clashes with Tom Leetch. The

modifications all share in common a strong preoccupation with reducing the film’s intensity and its horror. The first changes took place immediately at pre-production level. According to John Hough, the script written by Brian Clemens was “considered too dark and too threatening and black, as [Disney] called it.” Another writer, Rosemary Anne Sisson, was then brought in “to really lighten the script” and take out “a lot of the most sinister things that Brian had put in.” Hough also talked about the reasons behind these changes, and the extent to which they were important:

Their market was children and a young audience, so they were caught between how scary and sinister the film could be and how frightening […]. This was a constant source of

117 _{Hough, "Commentary on Alternate Ending 2."}

118 _{Scott Michael Bosco, The Watcher in the Woods - the Mystery Disclosed Booklet (Anchor Bay Entertainment,} Inc., 2002).

119 _{"The Watcher in the Woods: The Mystery Behind the Mystery."} 120 _{The Watcher in the Woods - the Mystery Disclosed Booklet.}

55 discussion, what level we should pitch the film at. I think they did have trepidation at the time.122

Actress Kyle Richards has also talked about this topic as a constant source of discussion between the two producers, Miller and Leetch. She recounted an especially problematic scene, in which the mother was meant to slap Jan after an argument about Karen’s disappearance — “Oh boy did they have a debate about that!”123 _{In the end, it was decided that Carroll Baker’s character would shake} Jan by the shoulders instead of slapping her, to tone the scene down. Interestingly, Richards, who was a child at the time, personally disagreed with their decision — “I’ve always thought it just wasn’t enough”124 _{— casting some doubt on the effectiveness of Disney’s strategy during this production.}

Other, much bigger changes were made — and unusually, these were carried out after the film’s release. The first of these had to with the opening sequence, the second with the ending. The original opening has been described by Scott Bosco:

A small girl is seen in the woods playing with a doll. The WATCHER’S presence (a roving camera POV) sneaks up to the girl from behind. She suddenly turns to the camera and screams, dropping her doll and running off. The camera changes its view from the running girl to the doll. There is a growl, the doll floats upward, becoming air borne, and is swiftly launched against a tree where it is struck by a blue beam of light igniting it. The Main Titles are played over the burning doll face which melts as the credits continue accompanied by a striking “psycho-like” musical strings.125

This was replaced with a montage of daytime shots of the woods over tranquil (if slightly eerie) music, which cut straight to the family’s introductory scene. This new opening is much milder and, being far less reminiscent of films like What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? and Psycho (Alfred

122 _{Film Commentary, (Starz/ Anchor Bay, 2002).}

123 _{Bosco, The Watcher in the Woods - the Mystery Disclosed Booklet.} 124 _Ibid.

56 Hitchcock, 1960), affects the tone of The Watcher accordingly — where the original ending would prime audiences for an intense film, the second version set up a mellower and slower-burning narrative. The decision to change it has been strongly criticised by Bosco:

It would seem Disney would rather have newly animated characters talk with the lingo of crack dealers than showing a doll burning. I suppose it was better to hear an African helicopter pilot say ‘I’d whip the bitch!’, as in the film BABY: SECRET OF THE LOST LEGEND [B.W.L. Norton, 1985] or for that matter have winged harpies, boldly nude, exposing their pink nipples in close-up as in FANTASIA [Norm Ferguson, 1940].126

If these examples do make Disney appear inconsistent, it is also true that the symbolism of a burning doll sets it clearly apart from bad language and nipples. Dolls are so closely associated with

childhood that to show the extended and explicit destruction of one could raise uncomfortable associations with the destruction of childhood and children’s innocence. As the Disney brand was built on ideals of childhood and family values, this connotation could be especially damaging. The studio’s dilemma is apparent, then: how to push the boundaries of Disney films through the horror genre without crossing the line of what the audience expected from the studio and its ideology? The problem was noted by reviewer Bill Marshall of Britain’s Monthly Film Bulletin: “It is not surprising, given the contradictory notion of a Disney horror movie, to find that, for all its atmospheric shots […], The Watcher in the Woods is really an anti-horror exercise.”127 _{Marshall’s description strikes me} as accurate — for every horror element in the script there was an effort to tone it down, erase it or detach it from ideas of the supernatural and, indeed, from the horror genre itself. One final example will demonstrate the extent of this anti-horror drive, as well as its repercussions in the film’s tone and narrative cohesion: The Watcher’s much-debated and much-derided ending.

126 _Ibid.

57 The ending was a point of contention between Leetch and Miller from early stages and into the production period itself. “The real suspense was how we were going to end it,” actress Lynn-Holly Johnson has said in interview. “[It] was still being discussed between the two producers.”128 Eventually, the ending was agreed between Leetch and Miller. It was to contain a sequence full of special effects depicting what happened to Jan and Karen after the successful ritual: Jan would be taken by the Watcher to The Other World, where his spaceship had crashed and where Karen was frozen in time and space; with Jan’s help, Karen would be restored back to Earth, switching places with the Watcher. However, the special effects were not completed in time for the film’s release, which had been strategically tied to the 50th _{anniversary of Bette Davis’ career. Instead of waiting for} the finished product, Disney decided to simply cut the entire sequence and release the film without it.

Unfortunately, the deleted sequence was crucial to the film’s narrative and the released film both confused and insulted the critics who previewed it. According to Scott Bosco, who was present at the first screening, critics seemed to be enjoying the film up until the final act. In his report, Bosco described how the audience “leaned forward with expectation” and “lurched back into their seats, with a gasp” at the Watcher’s reveal, applauding. “I had not experienced a preview response like that since ALIEN [Ridley Scott, 1979], when the creature broke out from John Hurt’s chest,” Bosco wrote. The problem, he continued, was when the film ended and “no one had understood exactly what had transpired.” The situation worsened during the Q&A that followed the screening, in which Lynn-Holly Johnson was asked “what was it they had just seen.” The actress responded with a summary of The Other World Sequence, until “a press agent quickly covered the mic, pulled Lynn- Holly away, and whispered something to her. Returning to the mic, Lynn-Holly responded with a slight giggle, ‘But you didn’t see that.’ A murmur of disbelief expelled from the audience.”129

128 _{Bosco, The Watcher in the Woods - the Mystery Disclosed Booklet.} 129 _{"The Watcher in the Woods: The Mystery Behind the Mystery."}

58 Critical reactions corroborate Bosco’s account. Vincent Canby’s review, often quoted by other reviewers contained the following sharp remarks: “I challenge even the most indulgent fan to give a coherent translation of what passes for an explanation at the end. The movie’s metaphysics, bogus anyway, are not helped by the appearance of a creature that looks as if it had been stolen from a Chinese New Year’s parade.”130 _{Another critic, Ed Blank of The Pittsburgh Press, wrote:}

During the ritual, something resembling a crab in seaweed bobbed into view briefly. We knew to expect something macabre, but the film — essentially a ghost story — had

introduced at the 11th _{hour a creature appropriate to a horror flick. In doing so, it broke faith} with the audience by violating inner logic.131

Both critics address the narrative incoherency of the film and, to a lesser degree, the problems with the special effects for the Watcher creature. Blank’s review is especially striking, as it addresses Disney’s “anti-horror” dilemma and the compromises between Disney’s desire to make a horror film and its inability to commit to its specifications. The importance of the ending in this situation was not ignored by the filmmakers. After Disney withdrew the film, Harrison Ellenshaw was hired to rework the ending. In interview, he has said that he was handed a pile of ideas for new endings — “roughly 152” — and “they were all awful.” The problem for Ellenshaw was that in the first version, “[the Watcher] came across too much as a monster. I thought making it more of a ‘ghost’ film with a Watcher that was less concrete added to [it], even though that’s still science fiction.”132

The curious thing about these statements is Ellenshaw’s distancing of The Watcher from the horror genre, progressively approximating it to science fiction instead. Producer Tom Leetch has also echoed this intention, when addressing the differences between the two endings; the first

supernatural, the second alien. “We dealt with it on a much more basic level as we toned down the film each time,” Leetch has said. The progressively reduced intensity was in order to leave no doubts

130 _{Aljean Harmetz, "'Watcher in Woods,' Revised $1 Million Worth, Tries Again," in The New York Times} (1981).

131 _{Ed Blank, "Bette Davis Superb; 'Watcher' Average," The Pittsburgh Press, February 1 1982.} 132 _{Scott Michael Bosco, "Interview with Harrison Ellenshaw," in Digital Cinema.}

59 that “there was nothing bad about it” and that “it had not been a bad experience for the young girl [Karen].” Leetch continued: “[We kept] trying to figure out a way to shoot it pictorially to get it across to the audience that she wasn’t harmed. The ending was meant to be an uplifting happy one.” When asked why The Other World Sequence was not used in the film’s final cut, Leetch was vague: “Well, those are hard questions to answer.” Then, hinting at his disagreements with Disney’s president, Ron Miller, he added, “We had, I must admit, a difficulty in coming to an agreement with the powers that were involved as to what was correct and wasn’t. […] Our backs were up against a wall and we had to make choices.”133

Unfortunately once again, the second ending was nearly as unsuccessful as the first. In the words of critic Ed Blank, Disney’s alleged $1 million investment in the new cut meant “they must have had a $950,000 lunch break.”134 _{For one reviewer, it was “one of the most baffling denouements ever,”}135 for another it “looks hopelessly tacked on” with “virtually nothing to do with the character

relationships built up in the earlier going. It’s a letdown.”136 _{Yet again, the complaints referred} mainly to narrative incoherence of the ending, and the misleading way it sets up a horror story only to climax as something else — as retrospective critic Joseph Stannard put it, “the film seems to be building to an epic revelation that never materialises, and while the climatic ritual is staged with the intensity of a Hammer classic, the resolution takes place, in stereotypically Disney style, amid hugs and smiles.”137 _{In other words, it remained an “anti-horror exercise.”}

Disney has never acknowledged any reason for The Watcher’s failure other than the initial special effects problems, a theory also supported by director Hough: “The public’s and critics’ reaction to the look of the alien was so horrendous — everybody started laughing practically. And so Disney withdrew the film from showing, and re-shot the ending without any special effects, without the

133 _{The Watcher in the Woods - the Mystery Disclosed Booklet.} 134 _{Blank, "Bette Davis Superb; 'Watcher' Average."}

135 _{Terry Pace, "In Review: Disney Staying in Woods with 'Watcher'," Times Daily, November 27 1981.} 136 _{Edward Jones, "'Watcher in the Woods' Doesn't Measure Up," The Free Lance-Star, October 15 1981.} 137 _{Stannard, "Out of the Woods."}

60 alien.”138 _{However, my analysis of the film’s production history and its critical reception does not} support this theory, instead pointing toward Disney’s struggles with horror as the culprit, suggesting that change was underway in society’s perceptions of horror: children were becoming acceptable target audiences for the genre, but not without restraints. Exactly where and how these restraints had to be enforced, however, was a great source of tension and anxiety.