Spoilers for the theatrical version of Dead Silence and the original screenplay lie ahead.
Content Warning: instances of pregnancy loss and spousal abuse are discussed.
It’s difficult to imagine what modern horror would look like without the influence of James Wan and Leigh Whannell who came to prominence via the gruesome and compelling film Saw. The 2004 film showcased how deft Wan and Whannell are as filmmakers and writers with their keen eye for character and ingenious novel plot aspects. The film was the perfect storm that launched their careers and has forever changed the face of horror. Wan and Whannell have proved themselves flexible and adept at creating different types of affecting horror from their combined efforts such as the Insidious franchise as well as their solo efforts including Wan’s The Conjuring series and Whannell’s The Invisible Man and Upgrade. With such impressive efforts it’s easy to forget the film that is largely regarded as the bastard child of the Wan and Whannell oeuvre.
Dead Silence, a film that should have been a hit and spawned many sequels like other Wan and Whannell films, was a victim of intensely invasive studio meddling that led to a less than satisfactory film experience for not only the fans but for Wan and Whannell themselves. The film that was distributed was extremely different from the vision Wan and Whannell had in mind. Relics of the vision they had exist as alternate beginnings and endings, deleted scenes, and earlier drafts of the screenplay. When viewers take the time to unearth the pieces to the larger puzzle of Dead Silence they discover a unique revenge tale that was ultimately botched by incomprehensible studio interference. One of the most impressive facets of the original version of the film was the sinister and sympathetic villainess in the form of Mary Shaw’s accomplice, Ella Ashen.
Dead Silence follows Jamie Ashen (Ryan Kwanten) as he returns to his hometown after the mysterious death of his wife. At the beginning of the film, Jamie and his wife (Laura Regan) are sent a ventriloquist dummy with no return address. At first, the couple thinks it’s a joke and thinks nothing of it until Jamie leaves to pick up their takeout. When Jamie returns, he finds his wife dead, and the plot of the film is set into motion. The audience learns more about the origin of the ventriloquist dummy and the deadly history behind it. Mary Shaw (Judith Anna Roberts), a ventriloquist, was gruesomely murdered after a young boy, a member of the Ashen family, went missing. The young boy had publicly humiliated Mary and thus the townsfolk assumed she was to blame for his disappearance and subsequently cut out her tongue, killing her. Mary’s ghost has been carrying out revenge on the Ashen family and others since her death. If someone screams in the presence of her ghost, she will take their tongue. Throughout most of the film, the viewer assumes that it was Mary Shaw’s ghost working alone until it is revealed that Jamie’s much younger stepmother, Ella (Amber Valletta), is her accomplice. While the final film seemed like a rushed product with the tacked-on twist of Ella Ashen working in cahoots with Mary Shaw’s ghost, the deleted beginning and ending provide more context for Ella’s role in Mary’s revenge plot.
The film and its story don’t entirely reflect the full story Wan and Whannell were trying to tell details and even full characters were omitted. Ella’s full story is only revealed via alternate and deleted footage and the original screenplay for the film. The screenplay elaborates even further than the alternate and deleted footage do even, giving both Mary Shaw and Ella more backstory. The original tale is one of sorrow and vengeance which makes the film’s ending all the more grotesquely satisfying for the viewer. The screenplay opens up with a woman telling her son Mary Shaw’s tale as a scary bedtime story. The alternate opening is basically a watered-down and abridged version of this that greatly alters Mary Shaw’s original story. The story presented in the screenplay by the woman to the little boy shows that Mary Shaw was a victim of domestic violence at the hands of her husband and explains why she turned to her dolls as a means to cope. Mary is revealed to have lost a child due to her husband’s physical abuse. The loss of her child caused Mary to spiral and become emotionally fragile, treating her dolls as if they were her children. It can be inferred that Mary was never able to have children after the loss of her unborn child. Mary’s original fate is different from the film’s, as well. Years later, Mary’s husband is the one who cuts her tongue out as punishment for her talking back to him. Mary survives the ordeal, but she finds that she is no longer able to live because she can no longer carry on her work as a ventriloquist. Subsequently, Mary took her life and her vengeful spirit was born. Her first victim? Her abusive husband, of course. The other backstory details where a child humiliated Mary and the child went missing and Mary was suspected to be the cause of his disappearance remains intact in the body of the text. However, the child in the screenplay has no relation to the Ashen family and Mary was simply trying to make her perfect child out of the boy.
Ella’s story was originally written to heavily parallel Mary Shaw’s in the screenplay. Ella is presented purposefully as delicate, beautiful, and unassuming in all versions of the film; however, her heel turn to villainy is more effective in the original screenplay because of the sheer power in Ella’s story. Ella is the much younger wife of Jamie’s brutish father, Charles (Bob Gunton), a man with a history of abusive behavior. Jamie is understandably estranged from his father as a result of the abuse his own mother was subjected to at the hands of Charles. Ella posits herself as a sweet ally for Jamie in the film, someone who genuinely wants to get to know her stepson better. It’s a suitable setup for a Desire Under the Elms situation, which makes the twist all the more wonderfully surprising.
It’s not until the final moments of the alternate ending and the original screenplay that the viewer discovers that Ella has been acting as an accomplice for Mary Shaw’s ghost. The two women are far more alike than they are different in their backstories. Jamie discovers that Ella was once pregnant and lost the child because of Charles’s abuse. She tells a story to Jamie that mimics Mary Shaw’s origin story about how she was abused and lost her child. It was after the loss of her child that she started to hear Mary Shaw’s voice. It is then that Ella and Mary’s master plan is revealed. Ella has been controlling the corpse of Charles like a human meat puppet and that Ella has allowed Mary to possess her and be used as Mary’s perfect doll. Lisa was killed as a way to lure Jamie back home so that Ella could have the family that she always wanted. Of course, everything goes according to plan, and Jamie eventually screams and Mary’s ghost subsequently kills him. The end scene reveals that the woman speaking to the boy is none other than Ella herself, and the boy is Jamie’s corpse with Ella speaking for him via ventriloquy.
What makes Ella and Mary in their original forms such compelling characters? Well, there is a noted lack of female villains in the horror genre, but there is also the fact that both are empathetic. They have done horrible deeds, but their motives are clear and, honestly, understandable and even relatable. Grief and the loss of a child are common themes found in the horror genre. There are prime examples everywhere from the works of Stephen King to the films found on streaming platforms like Shudder. (If you’ve been waiting to read Pet Sematary or watch Anything for Jackson and Lake Mungo, this is your sign.) Grief can wrack a person greatly, and ultimately shake their entire mental fortitude. Not to mention the grief is born of traumatic events that left both women forever changed. Mary Shaw retreated into her work as a ventriloquist and her dolls as a means of escape from her reality, but she was never able to shake the loss of her child or her husband’s abuse. In real life, it’s entirely common for people to cling to their interests as a way to work through their own traumatic experiences and create a sort of comfort for themselves. It’s difficult to not feel for the woman even though she is clearly a villain. It’s an interesting backstory to give a villainous character that speaks to many real-world problems involving the harsh realities of spousal abuse and domestic violence. Mary Shaw, despite her villain role, has elements to her character that are painfully human.
Ella’s character parallels Mary’s. Ella is a woman who, for all intents and purposes, should have the perfect life. She’s the beautiful young trophy wife to a much older and affluent man. Appearances are often deceiving, and people can turn out to be real monsters in the end, and with Ella, that is entirely true. She is sucked into an abusive cycle that Charles perpetrated with his other wives. This is not uncommon. There’s a reason why, when one victim comes forward, there are often more that will follow; abusive men leave a trail of wanton destruction in their wake. Mary and Ella’s stories are separated by decades, but they are sadly similar, showing that, while times may change, there are horrid facets of life and society that remain stagnant.
With their full stories taken into consideration, Mary and Ella make for a richly created villainous duo. It’s truly a pity that the characters’ original backstories and motivations weren’t preserved in the original film because the throughline for both characters was more affecting and wrapped the film up in a more logical and emotional way. It’s a perfect case against studio meddling and trusting the visions of the artists that are hired. Wan and Whannell had already proven themselves more than capable of telling an effective horror story, one that dealt chills and was emotionally investing. There was no need to profane their vision and alter it in such a way that it backfired not only on the studio, but left the creators feeling frustrated and forlorn. Whannell hasn’t been shy about how miserable and discouraging the process was, and why should he be? The original tale he and Wan spun was a richer story, and in the end, they only saw a mere bastardized fraction of it brought to life. No creative should have to be silent about the painfully unfair experiences that are thrust upon them while trying to create, and if it can happen to the creative force that created Saw, it can happen to literally anyone.
The theatrical version of Dead Silence was far from the movie that audiences were supposed to receive. However, the scraps of the movie it could have been are out there and stand as a testament to how, if Wan and Whannell had been allowed to bring that vision to fruition, they would have likely had another hit under their belt. There are still admirable qualities about the theatrical version, but it is nothing compared to what the director and writer had originally envisioned. In the end, fans of Wan and Whannell are left to mourn what could have been and the nuanced villainous duo that audiences were robbed of experiencing.
Author’s Note:
For those that are interested — the alternate beginning can be found here, the alternate ending here, and the second draft version of the script here.
