Pearl (2022)

Director Ti West is an interesting specimen in the world of modern horror. Sure, he makes films that are popular with critics, but they’re not exactly what the cool kids derisively refer to as “elevated horror.” His films don’t spin their scares from everyday trauma or socio-political allegory, nor do they go out of their way to challenge and provoke their audience the way something like It Comes at Night does with its uncompromising bleakness. By that same token, West’s horror films are far from the disposable kind that horny teenagers go to see at their local theater that only plays three films at any given time: a CG children’s movie, an adventure film starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, and one horror film, probably produced by Blumhouse. Rather, his films make use of proven filmmaking techniques to tell stories that fall squarely within the horror tradition - stories involving vampire bats, murderous hillbillies in the woods, satanic cults, and haunted hotels - while doing them up more intelligently and, arguably, more effectively than they’ve ever been done before. 

West would eventually disappear from the horror scene after the somewhat maligned The Sacrament in 2013, only to reappear in grand fashion almost a decade later with the phenomenal X, which seemed to capture the imagination of both the mainstream and arthouse crowds. Around the time of its release, we learned that Ti West and his new muse, Mia Goth, had apparently conceived of and shot an entire prequel film while waiting around during the production of X, and a scant few months later, Pearl was released. Horror sequels almost never turn out well, especially not slasher sequels, but Pearl promised something a little different: it would focus on a shared location and a few shared characters from X, yet the film itself would work as an example of an entirely different subgenre of horror: Pearl wouldn’t be another slasher film, but a psychological horror film that would fill us in on the backstory X’s main villain. Usually, when eager fans hear things like this, they’d be wise to file it somewhere under “Too good to be true,” in their minds and move on, but being that this was a Ti West joint and that A24 was still producing, there seemed to be a small glimmer of hope that Pearl could turn out differently than all the previous failed attempts at expanding a small horror film into a franchise that have come before it. With everything going for it and hype for the film fairly high prior to release, how exactly did things pan out with Pearl?

Well, before we get into that, let’s talk premise: Pearl acts as an origin story for the titular antagonist from X, meaning that it takes place all the way back in 1918 when she was just coming of age on the very same Texan farm where the grisly events of that film took place. Though Pearl is married to Howard, a by-all-accounts stand-up guy who comes from a rich family, she's still unable to elude the family farm or the presence of her overbearing mother after he abandons her to go enlist in the army to fight in the great war - WWI, that is. As a result, Pearl is forced to live out a routine existence, helping out with farm chores, taking care of her paralyzed father, and butting heads with her mother, a German immigrant who runs a very tight ship but seems to have good intentions... well, at first anyway. 

When Pearl goes to town to pick up groceries and run errands, she’s able to briefly escape by going to see the pictures, which leads her to dream desperately of stardom as a way out. Things come to a head when she’s tipped off by her sister-in-law Mitsy that an audition for a traveling dance troupe is fast approaching, a gig Pearl will do literally anything to land... 

Psycho analysis

So in case it wasn’t already obvious, this is a psychological horror film - not a slasher, as it's often labeled - that is seen entirely through Pearl’s eyes. As far as the psychology of the piece goes, it’s fascinating because, though our complex protagonist displays worrying signs of psychopathy as soon as the film begins (Poor, poor Mr. Goose,) she’s also on the receiving end of her mother’s resentment and is being driven slowly mad by her isolation from other people. So things aren’t exactly cut-and-dry, and that's exactly how I believe any horror story in this subgenre worth its salt should operate. This is also why I sort of despise people comparing this film to Joker, where things aren't ambiguous in the least and it feels like the whole world woke up one morning, got together, and decided to make a concerted effort to drive that film's protagonist insane, but I digress.

Appropriately for a film that focuses so much on her character that it’s named after her, Pearl's presence feels larger than life: she can melt your heart with her Sissy Spacek accent, brown puppy-dog eyes, and awkward mannerisms, only to terrify you a moment later with her almost biblical wrath. It’s probably true that the kernel of this is all there in the script, but there’s no doubt that the character, and by extension the film itself, would be nowhere near as fascinating if not for Mia Goth’s fearless performance. How someone like her can so convincingly play a meek and mousey character like this so well is a riddle for the ages, and while she’s certainly not afraid to ham things up significantly during Pearl’s more intense scenes, it always feels earned and they’re a nice break from a generally very subtle and nuanced portrayal of a difficult character.

But in line with West’s previous films, this richness of character doesn’t stop with the main character. While Pearl’s mother could have easily been nothing more than the traditional ‘abusive mom,’ somewhere between Piper Laurie’s hilarious performance in Carrie and Joan Crawford in Mommy Dearest, she actually possesses depth; just enough, in fact, to make her fraught relationship with her daughter seem utterly tragic, which only enhances the gut-wrenching turns the plot eventually takes. Yes, "Momma" is strict, more than a little cold, and occasionally a touch on the psychopathic side herself, but, like Pearl but perhaps even moreso, she’s hopelessly stuck in her situation; her husband needs her constant attention, the farm needs her constant attention, and there’s no knight in shining armor for her if the war ever ends. She’ll be here until the day she breathes her last, one way or the other, and as bitterly as she treats Pearl, she can also be occasionally heard weeping in her bed at night. Who can blame her for keeping Pearl at a distance? She knows that sooner or later, Howard will likely return and take Pearl away, leaving her all alone to manage everything by herself.

In the middle of all of this is Pearl’s father, a man who, despite being completely paralyzed, is clearly still “in there” somewhere. What constitutes 'living' for him is certainly the most horrifying set of circumstances yet described: he’s forced to lie completely still while his wife and daughter take care of everything for him, slowly going insane and turning on each other all as a result of him and his condition.

And then there’s Mitsy, Pearl sister-in-law. Her introduction scene doesn’t do her any favors - showing off her expensive new dress to Pearl and blabbering through an entire scene with nothing but obvious exposition - but she’s ultimately another figure designed to be pitied more than hated, in stark contrast to many horror films in the 21st century. Her on-the-nose name is no accident either, so that it feels like she can hardly be blamed for the things she does that could be considered insensitive. Most importantly, there's the fact that she’s nice enough to invite Pearl to a dance audition that she’ll be attending, only to end up paying dearly for this act of kindness. This was something X had a lot of as well - stock characters, generally written as insensitive jerks in lesser horror films, actually trying to help people in need and suffering as a result, and I support it wholeheartedly. It's actually horrific, not darkly satisfying the way a lot of pop horror films are - especially slashers. It's definitely less rare in psychological horror films, but yet, Pearl still feels refreshing. Probably because, besides a few greats like Censor and Saint Maud, those types of horror stories simply don't get made as often anymore and certainly don't generally have the success and exposure that this one had.

Finally, there’s Mitsy's brother and Pearl's fiancé Howard: a rich kid who had the connections to avoid being drafted, yet decided to enlist anyway simply because he felt it was the right thing to do. Sure, this could be considered a selfish move that is ultimately responsible for everything that happens in the film and especially Pearl’s isolation, but it could just as easily be seen as a pretty selfless thing to do. After all, those trenches probably weren’t a great time, something which is made abundantly clear come Pearl's darkly comedic final moments. 

Making the most of what you have

Going back to the whole 'sequel done right' thing, I think it’s safe to say at this point that Pearl delivers on West’s promises. This feels - as vague as that word is in this context - completely different from its predecessor, and debating with people which is best would probably be a blast. Whereas X stuffed itself with visual references to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Pearl does likewise with Roman Polanski’s seminal psychological horror film Repulsion and The Wizard of Oz, funnily enough, and it’s a bold blend. Borrowing from Polanski, there is no end of visual symbolism (the smashed alligator eggs and the decaying of the roast pig) and from MGM’s golden-age classic, it borrows an exaggerated technicolor look and strange larger-than-life moments that feel straight out of a cartoon (the shooting star,) numerous ironic homages to classic characters and scenes from that film, and its rural setting, now that I think of it. What’s funny is that the film evokes the era in which ...Oz was released wonderfully, despite the fact that the narrative is actually set in 1918. The score follows the visuals' lead; strings are bowed en masse and hearts are worn on sleeves. It sounds larger-than-life, befitting such a screen presence as Pearl’s. 

And when it comes to the traditional winks and nudges you get in just about every prequel, Pearl thankfully keeps things minimal; the two films share a great many props and locations, but it doesn't draw too much attention. And then there are the nods to the previous film's cinematic celebration of the history of porn. Here, a vintage stag film is viewed and placed in a historical context, and Pearl (the character) doesn't even feel it necessary to say "What kind of psycho would ever wanna watch that?" or anything else to that effect. It's a surprisingly subtle touch that deepens the connection between the two sister films. 

And speaking of putting things in their historical context, have you ever heard of the 1918 influenza pandemic? For those out there that believe that Covid-19 was unprecedented and a major event that will be remembered from now until the end of time, here’s Pearl to remind us that history moves in cycles and that Covid-19 didn’t have shit on the Spanish flu. In fact, for people who generally seem to pine for ‘ye olden days’ when things were so much simpler, here’s yet another deconstruction of that myth: while out at the cinema, Pearl pulls down her mask and drinks heartily from a bottle of 'medicine' she just bought from the pharmacy while the screen displays scenes from the war: namely, some poor bastard’s face being melted off. Needless to say, life was cheap in 1918 and no one really had the strength to bicker and argue the way we spoiled rich kids of the future do. Sure, there’s more to it than that, but I digress.

Ultimately, all great psychological horror films hinge on their conclusions and the mounting tension as we approach them, and Pearl's is a doozy. It eventually becomes clear that things are slowly spiraling out of control and that Pearl is on the verge of lashing out, but we know not how, and especially not when, and the film's sequence of third-act setpiece moments that pay off all this tension do not disappoint. 

*brief spoilers here*

I think my favorite scene in the film is Pearl’s infamous 'confession' scene, where she monologues for what feels like an eternity, with the camera never daring to cut away. You’ve never seen dramatic irony like when one woman confesses to the other that she’s aborted her baby, cheated on her husband, and killed multiple people, and we’re not privy to the other woman’s reaction until nearly ten minutes later, when she’s likely already internalized that she’s not going to be leaving this room alive.

*spoilers stop here*

It all adds up to a bizarre blend, almost as bizarre as Pearl’s WWI-themed clown dance during her audition. It’s a bleak psychological horror film that centers around a fascinating enigma of a protagonist, with enough genuine characterization to avoid the modern problem of turning something that worked great in the seventies into the theme park version of itself; yet its also a big-hearted homage to the golden age of Hollywood, with all the color and charm you’d expect from such. In addition, it can pride itself as a sterling example of a horror sequel that totally avoids wallowing in the original yet still managed to succeed, with both audiences and critics. By the time Pearl comes to a close with one of the most inspired final images I’ve seen in a recent film (Pearl’s desperate stare as the credits begin to roll,) it’s become clear that it's just as full of fascinating contradictions as its titular character, only without the sort of whiplash that leads to a disastrous, unwieldy tone. Now the only question is: can Ti West really do it all over again with the upcoming MaXXXine? Here's hoping.