Through a Lens Darkly: Exploring the photography of the film Shutter (2004)

In honor of Halloween, Jared Case, curator of film exhibitions at the Eastman Museum, decided it would be fun to screen three scary films that feature photography as an important plot point. In response, we thought it would be fun to get a group together from our Department of Photography (DOP), watch all three films, and discuss the accuracy of them. This blog post shares the conversation we had around our first film, Shutter (2004).

SPOILER ALERT: Because we are talking about details in the film, we may give away some of the key twists and plot points. We suggest watching the film first, then checking out the blog post!

Jared Case, curator of film exhibitions: Shutter (2004) is a Thai horror film about a photographer, Tun, who starts seeing strange, seemingly otherworldly, images in his prints. Are they spirits coming through his film to deliver him a message? At the same time, there is a rash of suicides among his group of college friends. Thinking that they may be related, Tun’s girlfriend, Jane investigates the mystery, uncovering the secrets that Tun never told her. Made very much in the “J-horror” style of Japanese films The Ring and The Grudge, Shutter explores the idea of a malevolent type of spirit photography.

Kate Meyers Emery, manager of digital engagement: Let’s get started then! The film is based on the idea that ghosts or spirits can be captured by a camera. This phenomenon was not concocted for the film, but it actually comes from a historic tradition that was popular in the United States in the 19th century. So what exactly is spirit photography and what’s the history of it?

Lisa Hostetler, curator in charge, DOP: A spirit photograph is a photographic image in which a ghost or similar form of spiritual emanation appears to be present. The effect was usually achieved through printing more than one photographic exposure on a single photographic substrate, e.g. printing more than one negative on a single sheet of photographic paper.

In the nineteenth century, when diseases and the lack of contemporary safety protocols resulted in death’s being a more common part of everyday life, such photographs often provided comfort to bereaved loved ones. Not all spirit photographs were hoaxes; some were produced by request.

One point to remember is that before 1888, when the Kodak №1 came to market, professional photographers and serious amateurs with the time to learn complicated chemical processes and the money to invest in equipment were the only producers of photographs.

Kate: One of the things they mention in the film is that Polaroids produce the only images that that are reliable for spirit photographs… what is the reason behind that?

Jamie M. Allen, associate curator, DOP: In the film they say that Polaroids are the only type of photograph that can’t be manipulated. They are using SX-70 in particular, where the photograph immediately is ejected from the camera and the image develops in front of your eyes.

Kate: I’m guessing then because the film is immediately ejected, they are arguing that it would make them hard to manipulate and be the “most reliable” for picking up on spirits. Is that true — not that you can pick up spirits, but that Polaroids cannot be manipulated?

Lisa: No. There are a number of artists who manipulate Polaroid materials as the image develops (e.g. Lucas Samaras, you can see examples of his manipulated Polaroids in our online collections), and lots of amateurs have accidentally intervened in the image with a fingerprint or some other unintentional imprint. Theoretically, a person could deliberately intervene with a spirit-shaped item to create a “spirit Polaroid.”

Kate: So while the overall concept in this film, the idea that one can capture spirits using photography, stems from a real historic tradition, the film itself isn’t accurate in saying how it would be possible. In fact, the examples we know of spirit photographs were either commissioned to include a “spirit” or were hoaxes.

Let’s end with our rankings. On a scale of 1 to 10, how do you rank the film?

Accuracy (with 1 being that they don’t know anything about photography, and 10 being that everything was 100% accurate)

Jared: 6

Lisa: 6

Jamie: 7

Heather: 7

Scare-Factor (with 1 being that it wasn’t scary at all and doesn’t belong in this genre, and 10 being that you’re still leaving the lights on and having nightmares about it)

Jared: 8

Lisa: 8

Jamie: 8

Heather: 8

Overall Enjoyment (with 1 being that you wouldn’t suggest anyone watch it ever, and 10 being that it’s your new favorite film)

Jared: 8

Lisa: 7

Jamie: 8

Heather: 9