The Poughkeepsie Tapes (2007)

Now here’s an odd little movie that’ll likely never see the cinematic light of day!

The Poughkeepsie Tapes is a mockumentary dealing with the discovery of hundreds upon hundreds of videotapes that detail a demented serial-killer’s decade-long murder spree.

It was screened around several film festivals, and received good word-of-mouth as well as some promotion, before being shelved by MGM (apparently this is when they hit budgeting issues, and it’s slipped between the cracks since then). I personally discovered it through enthusiastic reviews from two of the blogs I read (Head in a Vice and Aloha Mister Hand, both of which you should check out) and went on a mission to hunt it down.

It’s a surprisingly effective film, and does a fair bit with its framing device of being a documentary, and for the most part manages to overcome its flaws. One of the most intriguing aspects of the film is just how messed up the uncaptured serial killer is. He has no regular MO or set type of victim, and the only consistency, other than videoing every single thing he does, is that he has a penchant for theatricality, including a sinister Medico della Peste mask. He kills, seemingly at random, although the randomness is a deliberate obfuscation on his part.

What this does, more effectively than many a serial killer film out there, is give him a quite vague and terrifying presence, because he could be literally anyone out there.  It won’t necessarily stay with you after the movie is done, but it means that for each new victim (and there are many) that we see on the tapes, they see him as a different person each time. It creates this character of the “Water Street Butcher” but it means that he can be played differently in each new scenario.

There is one particular scene, that is often pointed out as a highlight and has become something of a sensation on the net as a random scene to terrify people, wherein the killer ties one of his victims up, points his camera right in her face on the right-side of the frame, then slowly crawls in from the rear of the shot, but walking on his hands and feet, wearing not one but two masks – it is distinctly odd and unsettling, and is a really strong image to sell the film with.

There are also some interesting beats in the narrative that play with a grim comedy; the serial killer spends years planting evidence against a policeman to throw suspicion from him. The policeman is then executed as the Water Street Butcher, only for the actual killer to then taunt the policeman’s family with a map saying “missed one”, effectively exonerating the policeman three days after his execution. The irony of a serial killer using the justice system to kill a policeman is not lost on a reporter, who says it would’ve been a national sensation – if only the story hadn’t broken on September 10, 2001.

There’s also a sequence, implied to be early on in the killer’s career, where he hires a prostitute to inflate a balloon and bounce on it in her underwear. He tells her not to pop it, and so when she inevitably does, we know he’s about to kill her (we never see this) but the film freezes on her shocked face, and on the surface it’s meant to be scary, but I can’t help but feel that the filmmakers were having a laugh in including it – I know I certainly did.

The film’s biggest flaw, and it is significant, is that some of the acting is atrocious. Now, it’s a low-budget film, so there’s a limit on resources, but the actors they’ve hired to play small bit-parts (news reporters, police chiefs, FBI specialists) are often s wooden and unconvincing that it really distracts from the credibility of the finished piece. Most of the acting is decent, but when it’s not, it’s a major problem, because the film’s success hinges on passing itself off as realistically as possible, especially in contrast with the craziness of the killer. It also doesn’t help that the film could’ve done with some more research into how people in relevant professions actually speak, because it often comes across as how a naive screenwriter thinks journalists, policemen, psychiatrists, forensic specialists etc. all talk.

There are however some particularly good performances, especially Stacy Chbosky as Cheryl Dempsey, the one victim he left alive. The killer abducts her and then subjugates her into being his slave; when the tapes are found, so is she in a wooden box. They try to rehabilitate her, but she has become so traumatised by her torment that the only way she associates to the world is through brutal pain, eventually taking her own life, and declaring her love for the killer in her suicide note. Chbosky’s performance is heartbreaking. Also worth mentioning is Lisa Black as Victoria Dempsey, Cheryl’s mother, who portrays a realistically devastated woman; there’s a particular scene where the killer actually films her, pretending to be a concerned citizen, and she realises he is the one responsible – it’s a contrived moment, but she plays it well.

However, apparently the version of the film that’s been circulating is a workprint of the movie (which also explains some of the crappy fonts used) and the filmmakers had the film shelved before they could get around to re-shoots and finishing touches.

It is a real shame that this movie isn’t more widely available, or that it never got the finishing touches it needs, because it’s an effective and at times very unsettling film. It moves along briskly, and if you can look past the wooden acting of some of the extras, works well with it’s documentary conceit. If you can find it – it’s currently available on YouTube although I imagine it’ll be gone before too long – it’s worth a look for something that’s a bit new and different.

It’s certainly not the greatest horror movie out there – but if you’re sick of the glut of found-footage movies that’s flooding the market, this is a good film to cast your eye over.


7 thoughts on “The Poughkeepsie Tapes (2007)

  1. Excellent write up Dave.

    Glad you managed to get hold of a copy. Seems as though you felt how I did, definitely creepy and I really wish this had been given the time to do those re-shoots and get a proper release. I’m trying to get an interview with one of the Dowdle brothers (since other directors have come to me, I may as well chance my arm right!?) so if I ever manage I hope they will spill the beans.

    • Yeah, it’s a shame that its flaws let it down so badly, as it seems like they would’ve been rectified with some proper attention.

      One thing I didn’t mention is that the post-processing on the “tape” segments doesn’t make it look like videotape, but badly-treated film like the sort of avant-garde fare that pervaded “video art” projects in the 90s – I found it distracting and an interference to those segments — but it’s probably an effect that needed to be put on to delineate the different segments.

      That said, there’s a lot of potential in what made it to the workprint!

      Let me know if you get that interview – it’d be great to know more of the particulars behind it!

      • Yeah the segments were hit and miss for me. I also felt (like you did) some acting was below awful, I mean it was as if they were reading phonetically off a cue card it was so stunted and slow. Others were perfectly fine though 🙂

        Yeah the interview thing is weird, I want to try and speak to the more indie directors (like the ‘Frayed’ one I did, not sure if you read it or not, but the guy was amazing, he contacted me, and I loved the movie originally, nice indie horror film). Im not aiming for Scorsese, but these smaller budget directors want to talk to people and promote their stuff, so the Dowdle’s will be the first ones I contact personally. If they agree Ill let you know.

      • Ha, thanks, it wasn’t really a ploy to get another view for it (but I’ll take it!). He was great, and he has offered me first hand details and scoops on the upcoming sequel. Even gave me exclusive videos! Why can’t everyone be that nice 🙂

  2. Quite a spot-on review (especially the observation about the “bouncing hooker” scene, which I also saw as an amusing bit of intentional dark comedy.) For all of its strengths, though, my biggest gripe with the movie was the filter they used to make the found-footage segments appear as if they were filmed on an old VHS camera and then watched repeatedly to the point of deterioration. It’s a cool idea in theory and might have added a feeling of authenticity to the scenes if the filter hadn’t been so obvious. I understand that the version I watched was a work-in-progress and maybe this issue would’ve been addressed if the film had ever been properly released. Still, as is, the consistent “wobbly” effect and color distortion really started to take me out of the movie after a while.

    Regardless, the film had some very effective moments (some of the scenes involving Stacy Chbosky’s character were truly disturbing) and was worth the watch. I’d love to see a “finished” cut some day but it seems that’s not very likely.

    • I completely agree! It’s hard to be objective about what was clearly a work-print, but given that’s all we’ve got to go on, I suppose it’s what has to be critiqued. Thanks for reading! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s