Host (Review)

The video conferencing service Zoom, for better or for worse, has become an integral part of modern life during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, it’s unsurprising – considering the recent success (or just simple existence) of films such as Unfriended and Searching – that we now have a Zoom film. To be even more specific, a Zoom horror film. Many of us have already had enough nightmare scenarios via Zoom, but what if you were on a Zoom call with a ghost? Well, Host explores that very question.

So how does a Zoom film work? Surprisingly well, actually. That the film works at all is the strongest positive in its favour. Throughout its runtime, Host emulates an actual Zoom call being made on a laptop. You always have the Zoom interface and all the actual ‘action’ – so to say – is shown via little video windows for each actor. What’s really impressive is that the whole film was made remotely during the pandemic; it’s not just a simulated Zoom movie, the film was – to a large extent – made over Zoom. The actors only interfaced virtually and worked as – under remote direction – their own camera person and in a number of wider technical roles. Within this constraint is a lot of room for failure – and also the very relevant question of what is the point? We will return to this question later but, once again, what is most impressive here is that the film is not a technical failure. Fundamentally, Host is really neat and quite an achievement. It’s a film made under lockdown that weaponises the limitations of lockdown – making its constraints into its actual content.

In the early going, the constituent parts of Host are all rather good. The actors sell their roles excellently – which is impressive seeing as we are all so used to watching Zoom behaviours that any uncanniness would emerge straight away. In fact when the film focuses on these behaviours, when it functions as a slice of life drama in its opening act, it is at its best. The premise is simple: we meet our characters as they connect to each other in order to have a séance over Zoom. It’s a group of university friends who have drifted apart somewhat, their lives splintering out in different directions, and they are reconnecting in lockdown. It’s a solid premise because it’s something that many of us have done during this time – or have done something very similar. Host also sells this incredibly well. Each character fits a certain role without feeling like a pure archetype and the small details are mostly nailed. We get technical issues, recognisable floutings of Zoom etiquette and – simply – a whole host of effective verisimilitude. My only issue regarding the technical construction is a dramatic conceit that means the view keeps changing randomly from speaker view to gallery view. This gets around the Sisyphean task of having the whole film be a single take in several remote locations but it also violates the reality that the film relies upon. We start with a mouse cursor setting things up, making it clear that our screen is the screen. This isn’t just presenting a Zoom call, it’s supposed to be the direct feed of a Zoom call (and this fabricated reality is key to the horror). It would, perhaps, be better if the protagonist was swapping screens and maybe it’ actually s just supposed to emulate us changing points of view – we are now looking at somebody else’s desktop who has it open on speaker view. However, people are often not speaking – it’s just used for reaction shots – and that also means most of the characters are just staring at themselves (or one other person) despite clearly reacting to being able to see multiple screens at once.

Why this really bugged me is because the film doesn’t have much else going for it beyond its technical wizardry. Its only appeal is as a Zoom film and dropping the ball there really hurts when that’s the only ball its got. As a horror film, Host isn’t very good. Once again, it is impressive that it exists – and how it was made is staggering to think about. Later on we have effects work and some really complicated things all done remotely. However, we also have just a host of clichés. It’s obvious form the beginning that the group are going to summon a malevolent presence, and they do. And then does exactly what you expect it to do – and exactly what you’ve seen before. Only this time you are seeing it through a zoom interface. But there’s nothing else to it. Things don’t escalate particularly interestingly and there’s no fear or horror because it is so standard. There’s really no idea here or plot – or meaning – beyond: a group gets attacked by a ghost while on Zoom. You are even waiting for some clever twist or a final plot point that would make things interesting, or just different, or just something… And nothing comes.

This is a real problem, it’s a classic case of they proved that something can be done but they don’t prove that it’s worth doing. It seems rushed. Somebody was going to make a Zoom film and this is just a desperate ploy to be first to market. And, yes, they pulled it off: they made a Zoom film. But it isn’t an effective or interesting Zoom film. In fact, there isn’t really anything there. It is, to give credit where credit is due, a very impressive technical achievement with a lot of very entertaining slight touches (even the end credits are neat, especially the Sound Editor credit). There is, ultimately, enough here to warrant a recommendation. It is a film that speaks very well to a particular time and comes straight from that time. It only works in isolation though, and when it needs to be an actual film, rather than a clever proof of concept, it’s incredibly empty. It is worth watching due to all the clever ways they make it seem like an actual Zoom call but it is also a missed opportunity. The Zoom film exists, and it is certainly a Zoom film, is there any point beyond this? No. Not really.