Introducing Analog Horror to the Big Screen: Skinamarink Review
Written by Trevor Stone Priesnitz
In 2022, the horror film “Skinamarink” was released to primarily confused audiences. Financially it was a success as it collected just over two million dollars at the box office with a budget of merely fifteen thousand dollars. A low budget is not always a determining factor for how effective or creative a film is, but it can be. “Skinamarink” was directed by Canadian YouTuber Kyle Edward Ball who garnered attention creating videos based on viewers’ comments detailing their own nightmares. In his first feature film, Ball seemed to have wanted to emulate the style found in the genre of internet fiction known as “analog horror.” As the title implies, analog horror is characterized by a use of either authentic or emulated analog equipment in its production. This is intended to give the impression that the content is either a type of “found footage,” like that of “The Blair Witch Project” (1999), or that the content is otherworldly or mysterious. “Skinamarink” uses this idea to tell a story about two children who wake up to find that their father isn’t anywhere at home, and all the outside doors and windows have vanished. Spoiler warning going from here on.
So, how does “Skinamarink” hold up against other feature and internet films? In my opinion, this is a great start for Ball’s horror directing career. First, let’s begin by detailing what I thought were the film’s strongest points. The atmosphere of the film is phenomenally done with my favorite element being the unique use of camera angles. Most of the film is done with fixed camera angles, typically from an extremely low perspective. This creates a sense of presence that many other horror films struggle to create. This also means that when the camera angle changes to something like a POV (point of view) shaky cam, the sudden shift to locomotion in the audience’s perspective makes it a lot more stressful. I also enjoy the fact that there is very little dialogue, and most of it is delivered sincerely.
“Skinamarink” does a great job setting up the atmosphere for the story, and suspense that I was loving until about the half hour mark. Something that I feel many other viewers can sympathize with about this film is that it draws out suspense for almost an entire hour with very little payoff. The first true “scare” of the film is around the 45-minute mark, and it felt very cheap and forced to me. The scare was a visual effect that shows that one of the characters has been affected by whatever entity is within the house, but it removes the punch of all the suspense that was built up to that point. Past that, future scares consist of a single jump scare, and a blood splatter accompanied by a scream. I was thoroughly disappointed by the lack of any good horror in this film. I’m not asking for a gore-fest or excessive jump scares, but I do expect to have reasons to care about the characters, and how the story will conclude.
My other large criticism of the film is the lack of taking advantage of the medium of analog horror. The way the director used analog horror was like watching a painter use watercolors without blending colors. The medium was used to create a final product, but it was not used anywhere near its full potential. In order to create the “analog” feel, Ball chose to use a grainy filter over the screen throughout the entire movie. I am not sure if this was meant to give the impression that the movie was shot with a VHS camera or to be some kind of perspective from the entity. Whatever it may be, it felt out of place and tacked-on rather than an aesthetic choice. The director also uses the television set as a major element of the storytelling, and this would become one of the most annoying parts of the film. The constant use of cartoon clips in order to hammer in concepts to the audience nullifies any sort of respect for the audience’s ability to put one and two together. The use of these clips felt contrived and kitschy in the established setting.
“Skinamarink” was a film that had a lot of ambition and talent behind it, but it suffered because of it. I could tell that the people who worked on this film sought to bring a modern genre to the big screen, but they lacked the follow-through in order to make it truly great. Ultimately the movie becomes a drawn out bore that struggles to use the tools at its disposal to weave an interesting narrative. The rating that I would give to “Skinamarink” is a 3/10. I hope that this film does not sway newcomers away from the genre as there are some really great examples of it on the internet currently. Some excellent examples of analog horror that I do recommend are “Mystery Flesh Pit National Park” by Trevor Roberts, “The Mandela Catalogue” by Alex Krister, and “The Walten Files” by Martin Walls.
Featured Photograph: Kyle Edward Ball, “Skinamarink,” 2022.
