Warning: This article contains significant spoilers for the Spanish horror films [REC] and [REC]2.
In the early 20th century, some critics abandoned traditional approaches to textual analysis in favour of the New Criticism. This approach holds that an author's work is a wholly self-contained entity and only analyzing the work itself is required when critiquing it; comments made by the author about his writings and factors that may have influenced the author at the time the work was produced have no bearing on the work.
In film criticism, this would be akin to claiming that a director's commentary track on a DVD is worthless because what he says about his film has nothing to do with what the film itself says. As odd a notion as this may be for some, the view is not without its proponents.
The Debate Over [REC]
On the Internet Movie Database, for instance, some users insist that [REC]2 is a bad movie partly because its writers "forgot" the conceit of the first film, which these users claim to be that demonic possessions are actually the result of "a biological infection or virus." Others who have contributed to the discussion noted that the climax of [REC]—when Ángela and Pablo enter the penthouse and find many religious artifacts and articles about possession—provides strong hints that a supernatural force was behind the infection. Furthermore, a sentience that controlled the infected would certainly explain their behaviour, to wit, the infected only attacking healthy people and Jennifer pretending to be uninfected until the others started to suspect her.
What the Directors Say
These arguments do not at all satisfy those who believe that [REC] debunked demonic possessions. Their position may seem like plain stubbornness, especially when they hold fast to their beliefs when presented with an interview given by co-director Paco Plaza where he candidly states that behind the infection in [REC] is, indeed, a supernatural cause. The supporters of the virus theory give no quarter even at the mention of another interview that Plaza and co-director Jaume Balagueró gave about [REC]2 that reveals they used the "fantastic explanation" suggested in [REC] as the basis for the sequel.
In the face of so much support for the supernatural explanation, many casual viewers and traditional critics may find an opposing view to be, at best, difficult to justify or, at worst, just plain silly. But when the New Criticism is used to analyze [REC], all external evidence—including the directors' explanations—is discounted, making way for alternate interpretations of the events in the film.
A Close Viewing
Performing a close reading (or close viewing for want of a better term) on [REC], one will find that the film is rather ambiguous in its climax. On the one hand, the camera zooms in on a great deal of Christian iconography as well as several newspaper clippings that mention possession. The trouble is that the recording Ángela plays talks about enzymes, vaccines, and mutations—terms associated with medical studies, not exorcisms. Granted, the recording also mentions a ritual, but what it involves is not explained.
By analyzing only what the film presents, a strong case can be made that [REC] subverts Christian notions of demonic possession by demystifying it, revealing it to be aggressive behaviour resulting from virulent infection. Furthermore, by examining [REC] in isolation, the idea that both the sequel and its directors missed this point can be defended.
This approach to interpretation does not by any means enjoy universal support. Yet, as a form of analysis, it is no less valid than any other school of criticism and should not be lightly dismissed.
Anthony Sin - Anthony Sin has been writing a while now, since The Beatles abandoned the clean-cut look in fact. Much to his surprise, he made it out of ...
![New Critical Approach to 2007 film [REC] - Filmax/Contender Entertainment](http://images.suite101.com/1885418_com_rec_eye.jpg)
Join the Conversation