I love a good ghost story. It’s surprisingly hard to find a bona-fide ghost story movie these days. I guess that’s why I’m so find of older horror movies like "House on Haunted Hill." "An American Haunting" comes so close to being what I want out of a ghost story I just wanted to cry at the end (okay, I'm exagerating, I’m not THAT hard up for a good ghost movie, but still).

For the most part this is a truly classic ghost story. A family in the early 1800’s is the target of a supernatural force. Betsy is the primary target set upon in poltergeist fashion: slapped, dragged, and pinned by invisible hands. She’s plagued by nightmares and visitations by ghostly children and wolves. As the ghostly force grows in power it begins attacking other members of the family and friends blowing out windows in the house and causing carriage wrecks. The family tries desperately to find release, but only discovery of an awful truth can show the way to peace.

I’ve seen a surprising number of comments that criticize the movie for its lack of violence. Why do you need to have body count to have an enjoyable movie? There are a number of reasons I like the lack of blood contained here. Primarily it’s because death does not become the focus. The family is tormented by something they can’t understand. They can’t escape, appease, or stop the entity. They are in a constant state of fear and helplessness. It’s like someone torturing you over a period of time instead of coming right out and killing you quickly.

I guess the prolonged torment isn’t as gripping to some as watching people die, but I think it’s much more difficult to keep the same characters in such a state than to kill them and move on to others. It’s one thing to be scared because you saw someone else die, it’s another to be so helplessly scared that you’d rather commit suicide than continue in such a manner especially when the tormentor has the power to keep you from being able to end your life.

In addition to all of that, this movie is based on “true” events, or “true legend” would be a more accurate way to put it. Most of the story takes place in 1818. It does have a bookend story set in modern times which seems to be more about setting the stage for the "true" story rather than part of the actual legend. Keeping it true to the source legend adds new considerations to generating a body count to have a gorier movie. If the legend doesn't include a lot of gory death why add it? Besides that, “true” stories of hauntings tend to involve strange noises, subconsciously seen visions, and unexplained phenomena rather than some supernatural serial killer. I loved reading those kinds of supposedly true stories while growing up so that is what I enjoy in a movie about ghosts. It is this kind of approach and atmosphere that creates the strongest moments in the movie.

So is this really a true story? It’s one interpretation. Who knows what really happened in that house? It was obviously something real enough to scare a lot of people including Andrew Jackson. I really don’t know much about the Bell Witch, although I’ve done a little light reading on it since seeing the movie. What I do know is that this account is taken only from one source, Powell, who is the teacher that James D’Arcy plays (the one that appears to be the “hero” of the tale), but it is a novelized version of those accounts written by Brent Monahan. That differs in some ways from the commonly told legend, but as best as I can tell from others’ comments (having not read the book myself) the movie interpretation is faithful to the chosen source material.

***SPOILER WARNING*** (highlight to read)

One big contention is that the commonly told legend doesn’t contain any element of sexual abuse. A lot of people familiar with the legend have been severely put off by the movie’s accusation that John raped his daughter especially since he’s not around to defend himself. It’s one thing to have a fictional character that does that, but depicting a real person as a rapist without proof is distasteful. However, according to the director, Courtney Solomon, this is an element taken from Powell's book rather than something Solomon made up for the movie.

The rape aspect is the big weak point of the movie to me. The death of Betsy's innocence created a poltergeist to remind her of what was done to her and bring justice to her father? I wish that sort of thing happened. I’ve known more than one person raped by their fathers, though none that repressed it as Betsy does. In some cases the children were ostracized by their families rather than supported. It sure would be nice if their stolen innocence manifested in a way that could reveal the truth to those with the power to do something about it, but it doesn’t happen.

I could see more ambiguity about whether or not this was all in Betsy's head or somehow Betsy herself being the unconscious cause making this a stronger story. Even a demonic presence that influenced Betsy's father to do what he did might be stronger. The idea of a poltergeist is already hard enough to swallow, but a sentient entity created by the commission of a single evil deed just doesn't float when there is so much evil that goes on visibly in every day life without poltergeists being created as a result.

Despite being an emotional event and a horrible occurrence on its own merits, the rape steals the thunder of the ghostly aspects weakening the haunting qualities. However, I guess if they really are staying true to the source material changing that aspect would be exactly what so many people are already accusing the movie of doing: inventing things for the sake of marketing. Perhaps better source material could have been chosen considering some believe that Powell may have been a real-life villain rather than a hero (a light that would not have been presented in his own accounts) and therefore Betsy's father potentially completely innocent of any wrong-doing.

***END SPOILERS***

Despite my contentions with the ending the bulk of the movie is enjoyable. The ghostly effects are well done and effective. I wouldn’t say it’s scary, but then out of all the horror movies I’ve ever seen very few approach anything close to scary for me, so my recommendation may not be one you wish to trust. However, while not scary it is quite suspenseful. The element of the unknown is carried well to the end. The desperation and hopelessness of the family is portrayed well. This is partially because of the acting. I’ve never heard of Rachel Hurd-Wood, but she carries across the ghostly attacks very well. Donald Sutherland is the best of the cast playing the haughty pride and destitution of John the father with perfect balance. James D’Arcy and Sissy Spacek are also very good. Some of the smaller parts aren’t portrayed quite so well but they aren’t enough to spoil the movie. I do think that the part of the “spiritual adviser,” James, could have been a lot better both in writing and execution.