The Guardian (1990)

 

William Freidkin's 1990 horror outing The Guardian was heavily marketed back in its day as Friedkin's return to the horror genre, years after The Exorcist wowed unsuspecting audiences. Somewhat surprisingly for one of the great American directors, it bombed on release, receiving negative reviews across the board and apparently underperforming at the box office, even eventually being disowned by Friedkin himself. What could have gone so wrong? Well, let's dig in and find out.

Our two newly-wed leads, Phil and Kate Sterling, find themselves raising a newborn baby boy despite the fact that both of them have demanding careers. Once maternity leave time starts to run a little low, they decide to hire a live-in nanny to look after little Jake while they're gone, despite a shared sense of guilt at having to subcontract out their jobs as parents. 

After their first choice of nanny dies in a mysterious biking accident, the couple have no choice but to hire their second: the alluring, almost too-perfect Camilla Grandier. She's beautiful, incredibly good with the baby, and also a fountain of motherly knowledge, even insisting to Kate that she go back to breastfeeding Jake at one point. Yep, things couldn't be any better, that is until our leads catch wind of another nanny in the area that matches Camilla's description using a different name; a woman who has developed a reputation for stealing children and leaving a mass of confused, upset parents in her wake. Could Camila really be such a monster?

So, though it may not seem like it from the outset, this is indeed a folk horror film about druids and tree spirits, and in that sense, it's pretty neat even if those ideas aren't explored as fully as they could have been. It begins very adjacently to The Exorcist, exploring the fears and anxieties of modern parents in a domestic setting, so that it's rather shocking when things take a decidedly fairy tale turn into Grimm territory. The imagery becomes larger-than-life and the ideas absurd, irrational, and very entertaining. Imagine a film that functions as something of an adult bedtime story, at least until its bizarre, gory finale comes along. In that sense, maybe the film was just a bit misunderstood when it was released. Everyone wanted another The Exorcist; everyone wanted something dark and fucked up, but what they got felt too much like The Evil Dead for comfort, apparently. But then again, was it really such a great idea to combine fairy folk with eighties splatter films? I'm not so sure.

The central character of the piece, Camilla the crazy child-stealing nanny, shines above and beyond everything else. This is Jenny Seagrove's show and damn does she know how to captivate. Even as the script was apparently being written and rewritten after shooting had already commenced, she never misses a beat. She understood the core of the character, and it stayed consistent throughout development hell. Camilla is charming; magnetic. She reminds me of Dan Steven's character from The Guest. We get to see her do good things like murder a bunch of implied rapists to keep Jake safe, not to mention all the love and attention she gives the little runt at all times. She exudes a larger-than-life motherly quality that's as comforting as it is kind of sexy, only for it to all get dashed once her monstrous intentions are revealed. You can buy her as this primordial force that simply chooses to dress in human skin. The build-up of suspense and mystery around her character sustains the entire movie and leaves me with a good feeling. 

This despite the fact that this film is kind of... well, it's like it's missing something. There are story beats and decisions that are shockingly amateurish, like the weird third act that quickly reveals Camilla's true nature and has both parents immediately turn against her, killing all the film's suspense with more than twenty minutes to go. And what about Camilla's little hints of attempting to seduce the husband? They could have done something interesting with that to fill time, but instead, they elect to have two climaxes in the same location, back-to-back. It's a film whose stretch marks are all too visible, and one just has to wonder what on earth Freidkin was thinking at times, even if it's all kind of hilarious regardless.

In the end, the film is a breezy watch, and it's clearly made with intelligence, though not always utilized effectively. The Raimi-esque climax is fun, if kind of moronic, and Camilla is a memorable villain. As the film goes on, it's hard to really argue with what you're seeing, but when it's all over with, there just isn't much to say. Friedkin did his best with the material, but he was clearly in over his head, and while he's a great talent behind the camera, he isn't really a great writer, and so probably shouldn't be having to perform last-minute rewrites on a film he's already shooting. There are a million missed opportunities throughout the film, and the elevator pitch for it is pretty much the entire plot, but it was nowhere near as bad as its reputation suggests. Recommended for Freidkin fanatics and folk horror addicts only.