THE TUNNEL

Australia, 2011, 90 minutes. Colour.
Bel Delia, Andy Rodoreda, Steve Davis, Luke Arnold, James Caitlin.
Directed by Carlo Ledesma.

The tunnel (or tunnels) in question are those below the stations and tracks in Sydney’s underground system, specifically St James station. These tunnels can be the opportunity for scary movies like Death Train, Creep, The Escape or even The Taking of Pelham 123 films. And, so they are here.

This film was a collective enterprise of backers buying shares for a small budget production. It was also delivered to audiences on-line as well as screened on Foxtel. (For those watching it at home, a recommendation is to turn off the lights and watch it in the dark – you will really be sharing the experience of the characters underground, their sense of menace and of fear.)

It begins like a television documentary with a TV announcer introducing a current affairs item about the development of Sydney’s water supply through a lake in the underground. We are then told that the project was mysteriously dropped and not talked about at all. A television crew is introduced via some home movies and banter and jokes which is a good way of establishing the central characters. They begin to interview a homeless man who has been in the tunnels but he weeps and rushes away. At this stage, the film becomes a reconstruction of events with two of the participants serving as talking head interviewees explaining what happened as their edited footage is shown.

Although we have been alerted by the opening with the recording of an emergency call from a station, it is now that the real purpose of the film becomes clear. With technology nods (and more) to the handheld cameras and style of The Blair Witch Project, the film is one of those fictions dressed up as fact, an account of some paranormal activity.

The real model for The Tunnel is Rec, its sequel Rec 2 and the American adaptation, Quarantine. In these films, we have a television crew, journalist and camera man going into a building and recording the weird and brutal events they encounter. The TV crew offer a basic credibility that cameras would be in these situations and filming. (And the actual camera man for the film plays the fictional camera man.) The Tunnel also has a producer and a sound engineer in its crew. There is a combination of ordinary lighting, but much of the film is night camera work, green, blurry and eerie.

There is a fair amount of repetition in the early part of the film as the crew explore the underground. Then mysterious things happen and one member disappears. Should they search for him without extra help? Of course not. But they do – and, of course, things get worse. There is a certain plausibility, however, for the audiences as the journalist and the cameraman are continually intercut offering their narrative in close-up. We know they have survived. But, how? And what or who was down there?

So, not a bad Australian contribution to the horror pseudo-documentary genre. (And, we keep asking, uncomfortably curious, what are those tunnels like in reality!)

1. The impact of the film? Small budget? Collaborative effort? Achievement? Distribution?

2. City of Sydney, the underground railway? The surface? Parliament? The streets? The television station? The credibility? The photos of building the underground, the workers? The water situation and the lake?

3. Sydney underground and the labyrinth, eerie, dark? The range of rooms, dilapidated, the steps? The use of colour in the film? The night light and the green effect?

4. The influence of The Blair Witch Project and handheld camera work? Rec and the journalists investigating a case? The journalists with the cameras in such a situation being plausible? The phone call at the start – and resumption at the end?

5. Films presenting as fact but which are really fiction? Fiction as fact?

6. The water, the plan, the role of the government, the minister, the stopping of the project? The minister refusing interviews? The issue of the homeless living in the underground or not?

7. The interview with Trevor, his being homeless, his collapse, hints of something monstrous underground?

8. The introduction to Steve and Natalie, their narrative throughout the film, in close-up, interview-style? Knowing that they had survived? Following the journey step by step?

9. The introduction to each of the journalists and technicians? The footage showing them talking, party, background, friends, jokes?

10. Natalie and the team, the background of her not succeeding in her reporting? Her wanting to prove herself? Getting entry, the guard refusing, their going down the corridor and getting through the gate? The authorities no knowing they were there?

11. The initial ordinary experience, their looking at the situation, the place, filming it, the footage? Designed for the television program? Expose? Natalie talking to camera, proving herself?

12. Tangles as the sound engineer, his background, cheerful man, friendship with Steve, practical jokes? The eerie experience of hearing the screams, the successive takes? His going to the next room – his disappearance?

13. Steve, camerawork, his friendship with Peter, with Tangles? Peter as the producer, the authority figure? Natalie, going down the steps, hearing them commenting adversely about her?

14. The issue of whether to search for Tangles or not?

15. The search, becoming more eerie, batteries getting low, the camerawork, the dead ends and corridors?

16. The glimpses of the creature, with the night light, green and blurry? The unknown? Their speculations? Audience speculations?

17. The attack, the escape, Peter and his being wounded, bringing him to the surface?

18. On the station, the repeat of the initial phone call? Peter’s death? The effect on Steve and Natalie? The bystanders on the station?

19. The end, the death, the information about the future careers of Natalie and Steve? Natalie withdrawing? Steve continuing?

20. The effect of the film as presented as fact? Enjoyable as horror fiction?