Ghostwatch Live (1992)

[flotemysost]

Was gonna post this in the existing Your spooky season viewing thread, but it's definitely a TV-centric topic, so here we are.

Went to a screening of this last night with a Q+A (the London leg of a tour, part of Sheffield's Celluloid Screams festival) not really knowing anything about it (having been three years old when it was first broadcast) and it felt like such an obvious, almost Brass Eye-like parody of all those hokey 90s TV tropes - the dramatic edits, patronising putdowns of the female presenters/interviewees, smarmy "experts", etc.

It was impressively slick at the same time though, and for all its silliness it definitely did raise some interesting questions around ethics, responsibility and safeguarding in (actual) documentary TV-making.

The Q+A with (IIRC) the writer, director, producer and one of the actors was also good, with some interesting and thoughtful replies, although it was "cut short" by

Spoiler alert

not-entirely-unpredictable flickering lights, mic feedback, disembodied voices on the screen etc. - which was fun and all, but I'd have preferred a bit longer on the questions tbh.

[close]

I was also convinced that the actor in the anonymous "talking head" bit about

Spoiler alert

haunted mackerel covered in saliva (which I completely lost it at) must have been Mark Heap, but the credits suggested otherwise.

[close]

Fun night anyway, and interesting to see a piece of (I suppose) UK TV history through the lens of today's hyper-cynical mindset.

[Alberon]

Part of why it works is, like The Day Today and Brass Eye, is the accuracy with the thing it is taking off. You've got the serious presenter Parkinson in the studio anchoring everything, you've got Sarah Greene doing the human interest interviews and you've got Craig Charles arsing about to fill the long hours in which nothing will happen.

Inside No. 9 had a stab at the same concept, but was probably hamstrung with having to fit it all in into 30 minutes. Here it is allowed time to build. I remember an early shot from the bedroom where there is a ghostly figure by the curtain. Later 'viewers' ring in to say there was something so they wind back the footage and, of course, this time there is nothing there.

There's the very wise decision never to fully show Mr Pipes (because it is just a guy in a mask) and it all winds up to a fun conclusion.

For me it proves to be one of the more unsettling horror pieces I've seen. Now it's decades old, but back then, even knowing it was a drama, it did get under the skin in the way that even the most sophisticated CGI never ever can.

[sevendaughters]

a colleague of mine was on a BBC Free Thinking about this the other day, it's good! Manning appears too.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001d6bj

[dr beat]

I was an impressionable 15 year old when it was aired.  According to the Radio Times archives it was a billed as a Screen One 'Special' (Screen One was a drama strand).  That word 'special' did a lot of work in confusing me at the time, as did the continuity announcements, which if YouTube is anything to go by, made it out to be real other than a passing mention of it being a Screen One.

The 90s production style may have dated a little, but I don't think it was ever intended as a parody or knowing in any way.  On the night it was played straight as a War of the Worlds style mock reality piece. There are some genuinely creepy moments, particularly the

Spoiler alert

bit about the dog foetuses

[close]

The performances by Parkinson, Greene, Smith and Charles are absolutely spot on.  I agree with Alberon its all about the accuracy and the continuity, the way it seems to head towards an anti-climax part way through and then builds again is a great use of the run time.

I'll be watching it this weekend, and I'm sure I will have more to say.  For now though there's a great podcast on TVCream (Creamguide Films Commentary) which is great on the background of it.

[sevendaughters]

they chose a properly good house for it too, suburban but also had all those weird nooks and crannies and oddnesses you get when inner space has been reworked, weirdly cold contemporary decor, slightly ineffectual lighting. the kids did their bit really well and you can see how it works kind of as an absent dad allegory.

[dr beat]

Yes I believe it's meant to be a nod to the Enfield Poltergeist case.

[dontpaintyourteeth]

out on bluray soon, innit

[chabrol]

For me it proves to be one of the more unsettling horror pieces I've seen. Now it's decades old, but back then, even knowing it was a drama, it did get under the skin in the way that even the most sophisticated CGI never ever can.

Absolutely agree, in fact, there have been times recently where people have asked me my favourite horror film and I've said Ghostwatch. I'm not sure that it's as perfect as some of the other choices I could make, but there's a feel and an atmosphere to the piece that I've not really experienced anywhere else, and which feels authentic to the actual lived experience of paranormal happenings (as much as such a thing may be possible) as you hear them recounted. Agree with sevendaughters above in identifying that with the house itself, which covers for some pretty ropey acting at times, but equally important for me are the snatches of history you get about the area from the neighbours and the callers, which hits upon the correct level of the mundanely horrific and feels exactly like the sort of buried history that some ordinary streets and estates gather but often goes ignored/untold (it reminds me of living in Moulsecoomb in Brighton, in many ways similar to the estate in Ghostwatch, and hearing locals talk about Wild Park, the site of the 'babes in the wood' murders and supposedly much else besides).

The whole work is convincing and intelligent, but it's easy to miss to what extent that's the case until you see how badly recent attempts to retell the Enfield Poltergeist case have gone.

There's a long retrospective article in this month's Fortean Times as well if anyone's interested (alongside one on the silent horror Haxan).

[neveragain]

I love it. It's brilliantly written, produced and performed (except for the family, sadly, who are a bit wooden.) The creeping dread is very effective. All the ghost-spotting is fun too.

[mjwilson]

Still never seen this. I was thinking of making it to one of  those live screenings but haven't been organised enough. 

[badaids]

a colleague of mine was on a BBC Free Thinking about this the other day, it's good! Manning appears too.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001d6bj

Thanks for linking this - its a really good listen.

I remember watching it at the time and turning over because it was boring. I had totally missed all the appearances of pipes - no situational awareness at all.

[Magnum Valentino]

out on bluray soon, innit

Monday

[El Unicornio, mang]

This genuinely terrified/shook me up when I watched it live aged 14. Went into the front room and my parents were incredulous that I believed it was real. Actually incredulous myself that I thought it was real at age 14 (could have sworn I was only about 10 at the time) but it was very well made.

[McDead]

I was about 15/16 when I watched this and it really got me good. Even now, I can't go back and watch it, I feel like I only just got over my aquamechanophobia about five years ago, and still the corners of dark bedrooms give me a small thrill of fear. The whole house was in uproar while watching it, I remember - my manic sisters were viewing on their bedroom TVs and screaming and shouting throughout, which only added to the aura of shrieking terror around the show. I had to keep switching over to Wall Street on ITV to calm myself down.

[JamesTC]

out on bluray soon, innit

Mine arrived Thursday.

New doc isn't much cop compared to the old fan made one. Upscale is alright though noticed a little frame skipping but this might be my player rather than the disc.

[studpuppet]

The whole work is convincing and intelligent, but it's easy to miss to what extent that's the case until you see how badly recent attempts to retell the Enfield Poltergeist case have gone.

I think that's also something that's missed in re-showings - the Enfield Poltergeist was a) big news and b) in a really mundane setting, so when this was originally broadcast, here would have been impressionable teenagers sat alongside their parents who would have some vague memory of the original case, that the presentation tapped (pun intended) into.

Here's the original seventies BBC doc (everything seems to have been re-labelled 'Conjuring 2' on YT) filmed at a time when people were just more credulous about the supernatural, and unexplained events in general.

[flotemysost]

Interesting seeing so many of you saying how unsettling you found it - along with most of the room, I was pissing myself for most of it. I realise that's probably partly an effect of watching something as part of a live audience (in the same way people might laugh out loud at, say, a live standup gig, at jokes they perhaps wouldn't laugh at if watching on TV at home). But I wonder how much of it is also inherent cynicism, borne out of 30 years' hindsight and much, much greater scrutiny/awareness of how these things are constructed (as well as the fact there's since been loads of comedy based on aping those tropes). I can understand how it might have been received pretty differently at the time.

Completely agree re: the house and location itself playing a huge role in the creepiness, though - it's that specific flavour of early-90s suburban mundanity, reassuringly familiar, and therefore also frighteningly believable when unexpected things do happen; far scarier than a big grand haunted mansion could ever be. And wooden though some of the family's acting was, in a way that in itself sort of echoed the slightly bizarre creepiness of old news/documentary interview footage with children - the way they kind of act up for the camera and come out with odd things sometimes.

Inside No. 9 had a stab at the same concept, but was probably hamstrung with having to fit it all in into 30 minutes. Here it is allowed time to build. I remember an early shot from the bedroom where there is a ghostly figure by the curtain. Later 'viewers' ring in to say there was something so they wind back the footage and, of course, this time there is nothing there.

Yes, I was thinking of that Inside No. 9 Halloween episode last night too. It had some nice creepy moments but for me it all felt a bit too meta/clever/21st-century ultimately, to be properly unnerving.

[Alberon]

Interesting seeing so many of you saying how unsettling you found it - along with most of the room, I was pissing myself for most of it. I realise that's probably partly an effect of watching something as part of a live audience (in the same way people might laugh out loud at, say, a live standup gig, at jokes they perhaps wouldn't laugh at if watching on TV at home). But I wonder how much of it is also inherent cynicism, borne out of 30 years' hindsight and much, much greater scrutiny/awareness of how these things are constructed (as well as the fact there's since been loads of comedy based on aping those tropes). I can understand how it might have been received pretty differently at the time.

I think part of the difference is the thirty year remove from when it was made. It was made with the live broadcast language of the time which made it seem a lot more real. Now it's three decades later and that brings a distance to the show. It's not that we're more cynical, but that live broadcasts shows aren't made like that anymore. So some of the connection is lost.

Another reason might be the setting for the screening. It's simply not going to be as effective as watching it live on your TV in your own home so similar to the one being haunted.

I was 23 and I was well aware it was a drama, but I still found it unsettling. Even though time blunts its spot on use of live broadcasts of the early nineties, it still works.

[beanheadmcginty]

I was 11 when this was first broadcast, as a family we went in assuming it was going to be real, but as soon as the mum turned up we realised it was fake. She is a truly atrocious actor and stinks up every scene she is in. Everyone else is pretty good, and I reckon the presenters are actually more convincing in their performances because we don't expect them to be entirely naturalistic in their delivery anyway. Despite knowing it wasn't real, it still absolutely scared the complete shit out of me at the time. I'd never seen anything like it before and it seemed to occupy a space in my brain between fact and fiction that I was unable to reconcile at that age, much like Father Christmas.
I watched it again last night and as an experiment got two foreign friends a decade younger than me to watch it with me. I still found it extremely creepy throughout and enjoyed trying to spot Pipes, whereas the 30-year-old Norwegian lad laughed at the phone technology then fell asleep within 5 minutes, and the 32-year-old Dutch girl said all the acting was shit, Mike Smith looked like Donald Trump, everyone inexplicably had loads of paper in their hands and it went on for far too long - although she did noticeably get engaged when the cats started crying.
Although they're wrong and we're right. It is a masterpiece.

[non capisco]

It actually surprised me this was 1992 when I would have been 14 years old because I'm embarrassed to say I thought it was real and turned it off out of fright. I'm actually just off out to change my name by deed poll to Morris Mitchener.

I can't remember the finer details but it was the bit where the woman rings up and says something about how a table has smashed by itself and her children are freaking out or something, then she screeches "WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS?!" Nope, too rich for my blood, switching over to You Bet or whatever the fuck. Reading that back now it seems risible I was taken in and was that scared at that age of THAT but there you go. I'm an open book and that's my story. Hey, at least I didn't think the Paul Daniels Hallowe'en stunt was real unlike one gullible scaredy cat on here _{has freely revealed on his latest patreon video.}

I remember going into school the next Monday and fronting it that a) I hadn't believed it and b) I'd seen the whole thing and not brown trousered it after watching three minutes but I could have sworn that was in secondary school at least. 1992! Fourteen! What a lily livered little baa lamb!

I bought the BFI DVD release in the 2000s and lent it to a woman I was seeing at the time and made the mistake of mentioning all of the above. Appropriately enough I was g-g-g-ghoooooooosted shortly afterwards.

 

[Cuellar]

I'm a similar age flotemysost so I didn't see it at the time and I think I first saw it on a CaB Halloween stream a few years ago.

Obviously I knew of it, so knew it was fake, but as beanheadmcginty says I've no idea how anyone took it to be real, the paranormal expert in the studio, the kids, they're all so clearly actors.

Still, it's good fun and I might watch it again.

[badaids]

I'm a similar age flotemysost so I didn't see it at the time and I think I first saw it on a CaB Halloween stream a few years ago.

Obviously I knew of it, so knew it was fake, but as beanheadmcginty says I've no idea how anyone took it to be real, the paranormal expert in the studio, the kids, they're all so clearly actors.

Still, it's good fun and I might watch it again.

I watched some of it at the time but turned over quickly because it was dull. I've watched it again tonight and I've no idea how anyone saw the sightings even when you're looking for them, they're so subtle.

Agree that it's hard to believe that people took it to be real, but specially once it starts getting silly. Though it is indeed good fun, I don't think I can go as far as everyone saying it's one of the best bits of tele ever. Hard to avoid thinking it's over rated. The acting by the doctor character is pretty poor.

[Magnum Valentino]

Can't check myself as I haven't seen it to know if not, but is this the actual broadcast here on YouTube in full or a documentary about it or something?

[badaids]

Can't check myself as I haven't seen it to know if not, but is this the actual broadcast here on YouTube in full or a documentary about it or something?

It's a review / reaction I think that one.

[neveragain]

The acting by the doctor character is pretty poor.

The main studio guest? I don't think she's bad at all. Seems a very natural performance, I can believe she's a real woman. Parky is also surprisingly believable.

[Alberon]

Stephen Volk did a short story as a sort of sequel.

A copy of it is here-

https://www.scribd.com/document/308537824/Stephen-Volk-31-10-Copy

[Cuellar]

The main studio guest? I don't think she's bad at all. Seems a very natural performance, I can believe she's a real woman. Parky is also surprisingly believable.

I thought she was very clearly an actor - but then I was coming it having seen her in Teachers etc. so of course I just went 'oh that's her from loads of telly things'

[Rev+]

I think part of the difference is the thirty year remove from when it was made. It was made with the live broadcast language of the time which made it seem a lot more real. Now it's three decades later and that brings a distance to the show. It's not that we're more cynical, but that live broadcasts shows aren't made like that anymore. So some of the connection is lost.

Yeah, even a couple of years later it would have been made very differently.  There's a definite feeling in the first half hour of 'hang on, there's a good chance bugger all will happen during this', which just wouldn't be a factor now.  There's also a subversion involved which is definitely lost to time:  Craig Charles is the outlier as his role is a bit different, but the other three presenters were friendly and familiar people who were on the TV all the time and could be trusted.  They don't have anywhere near the presence they had in 1992 - for various reasons - and without that immediate 'trustworthiness' I can see why it wouldn't work coming to it for the first time now.

The trailers for this did try to sell it as genuine, from what I remember.  Usually with Screen One you'd get a bunch of clips, but they stuck to the idea that it was something that hadn't happened yet and was along the lines of Badgerwatch or Reefwatch.  The actual broadcast was introduced as a drama, with the Screen One intro and a writer credit, so I knew it was bollocks but as a teenage horror fan it still worked for me.  There's an odd militancy about reactions to this one.  A suggestion that if you find it creepy, you've somehow been hoodwinked, as if you can't find 'Halloween' effective unless you genuinely believe Michael Myers is knocking about in your garden.

[dr beat]

The main studio guest? I don't think she's bad at all. Seems a very natural performance, I can believe she's a real woman. Parky is also surprisingly believable.

Dr Lynn Pascoe is fine. Nice slight northern accent. But what she nails is, this is an early career academic, supposedly Psychology, one of the most avowedly rationalist (in my experience) of all the academic disciplines, and yet her character has staked her career on this case supporting something which most academics wouldn't go near for fear of being labelled a quack.  On BBC on a Saturday night prime time.

[dr beat]

Yeah, even a couple of years later it would have been made very differently.  There's a definite feeling in the first half hour of 'hang on, there's a good chance bugger all will happen during this', which just wouldn't be a factor now.  There's also a subversion involved which is definitely lost to time:  Craig Charles is the outlier as his role is a bit different, but the other three presenters were friendly and familiar people who were on the TV all the time and could be trusted.  They don't have anywhere near the presence they had in 1992 - for various reasons - and without that immediate 'trustworthiness' I can see why it wouldn't work coming to it for the first time now.

The trailers for this did try to sell it as genuine, from what I remember.  Usually with Screen One you'd get a bunch of clips, but they stuck to the idea that it was something that hadn't happened yet and was along the lines of Badgerwatch or Reefwatch.  The actual broadcast was introduced as a drama, with the Screen One intro and a writer credit, so I knew it was bollocks but as a teenage horror fan it still worked for me.  There's an odd militancy about reactions to this one.  A suggestion that if you find it creepy, you've somehow been hoodwinked, as if you can't find 'Halloween' effective unless you genuinely believe Michael Myers is knocking about in your garden.

Apparently the BBC only insisted on having the Screen One label added to the broadcast at the last minute.  Again the YouTube clips which exist of the continuity announcements (I've no reason to doubt they are genuine) do imply its real other than the passing mention of Screen One