Hurricanes are frightening all on on their own without having to involve a predatory animal. Yet Carlos Brooks’ Burning Bright not only features a Category 3 hurricane, a ferocious tiger is thrown in for added effect. Back when this film was first announced, its plot was met with laughter and doubt; the idea was as intriguing as it was ridiculous. Over time though, this suspenseful story of a girl, a boy, and a tiger has become a shining example of how to follow through on a high concept.
Two distinct yet equally uncontrollable forces are on display at the beginning of Burning Bright. As Hurricane Isabel builds a sense of foreboding in the background, a young woman finally confronts her family situation. The collegebound Kelly (Briana Evigan, Sorority Row) is making the difficult decision of leaving behind her autistic brother Tom (Charlie Tahan, Super Dark Times) when life catches her off guard again. Kelly’s plans are dashed after her late mother’s husband Johnny (Garret Dillahunt, Last House on the Left) steals the money intended for Tom’s new care. And for what? A wildlife ranch with the centerpiece being, of course, a former circus tiger deemed more evil than scary by Meat Loaf. The musician’s fulsome cameo feels nearly out of place in this film, but the character is a forceful reminder not to take the tiger lightly, even when the plot comes across as absurd.
There is no organic way to have a tiger present in this story, seeing as these creatures are exotic to most people. They don’t belong in, much less originate in a place like Florida. So there needs to be a bridge of some kind that brings these disparate elements together. And after assuming Johnny’s latest purchase would simply escape his enclosure and enter Kelly’s house, Burning Bright thinks outside the box even further by revealing the tiger was released. This plot development is both so nutty and so fiendish it sounds like something drummed up by EC Comics.
Pictured: Kelly (Briana Evigan) and Tom (Charlie Tahan) confront Johnny.
The film neither has nor needs time to ponder the whys and whats of the characters’ sudden predicament; like Kelly and Tom, Burning Bright is in survival mode. The director is instead too busy finding efficient ways to keep the momentum up and the audience engaged. Those forty-something minutes of a (big) cat and mouse game could have quickly gone south in less capable hands, but Brooks manages to avoid the worst possible outcome in these kinds of conceptual stories. That is, boring the audience by either desensitizing them to the threat or animal, or just being too repetitive.
Unlike Alexandre Aja’s somewhat similar natural-horror film Crawl — the ’80s snake thriller Fair Game is an even closer match — Burning Bright doesn’t have the luxury of a dynamic venue (among other things). Kelly and Tom are very much sentenced to their home after it was sealed up with them inside. So there is a fair deal of the characters going around in circles here and revisiting the same parts of the house. In turn though, that story tightness becomes more and more intense as well as detectable on screen. The camera gets almost uncomfortably close and fixed on the actors’ faces, in particular when their rawest emotions are coming out in some form or another.
Escaping the tiger would be easier than this film’s symbolism. Perhaps taking a page out of The Descent and other films like it, Burning Bright uses a deadly creature — albeit a non-fantastical one — to contextualize a personal dilemma. What’s missing is nuance, on account of the straightforward approach. There is no mistaking what is being communicated here as Kelly fights for hers and Tom’s life. That level of simple storytelling could maybe minimize the film’s impact, however, the uncomplicated route works well in this case. An allegory being precise is preferable to a poor one.
Pictured: Garret Dillahunt’s character Johnny shows up to learn his scheme didn’t work.
Burning Bright would not be anywhere as effective without its leads. Charlie Tahan tends to be overlooked due to Tom being nonverbal, yet for his age, he turned in an impressive performance that is never ostentatious. Then there is Briana Evigan, a familiar face of 2000s horror, who is owed some credit for her character’s lasting impression. She requested the filmmakers give Kelly a personality touch-up so she would be more likable: “If you didn’t care about [her], why would you care if she survived?” And the work put into the protagonist pays off well. Yes, there is little delay before Burning Bright throws the brother and sister into the tiger pit that is now their home. However, it’s important to remember that Christine Coyle Johnson and Julie Prendiville Roux’s script doesn’t sacrifice character for action once the tiger shows up; the sibling relationship is always being explored. Every scene — especially ones with the tiger — deepens the personal story at the heart of the film, and paves the way for a rewarding and cathartic ending.
This isn’t a subtle film. Far from it. No, Burning Bright lays it on rather thick with traps both literal and metaphorical, which, by virtue of solid direction and performances, culminate into a worthwhile story of resilience. Apropos of thematic complexity, the film is still a far ways off from its namesake — William Blake’s poem The Tyger — but there are poetic moments here and there.
Horror contemplates in great detail how young people handle inordinate situations and all of life’s unexpected challenges. While the genre forces characters of every age to face their fears, it is especially interested in how youths might fare in life-or-death scenarios.
The column Young Blood is dedicated to horror stories for and about teenagers, as well as other young folks on the brink of terror.
The post ‘Burning Bright’ – Revisiting the Tiger Horror Movie 14 Years Later appeared first on Bloody Disgusting!.