Willkommen…

Posted on September 30, 2013 by Sam S-P

WC242595_942long

Something a bit different to usual, this blog entry is (mostly) about musical theatre. I saw a stage production of the musical CABARET a few years back, and I found it a very enjoyable night out. What intrigued me the most was realising how different the original musical is to the Liza Minnelli film version from 1972 (which I’ve been watching for over half my life). Last weekend I went to see another, much glossier and extravagant production, with Will Young (yes, that Will Young) as the Emcee. Again, it was a completely different take on the source material, Christopher Isherwood’s GOODBYE TO BERLIN. Not only did it differ drastically from the film version, but from all other incarnations of the musical (to the best of my knowledge) in its core message. This got me thinking about the issue of adaptation.

The musical follows a down-on-his-luck American writer Cliff Bradshaw arriving in Berlin in the early 1930s and beginning a turbulent relationship with a  performer at the local Kit Kat cabaret club, Sally Bowles. In the background of their complex relationship is the rapid rise to power of the Nazi party, and the drastic and terrible social impact it had on millions.

Bob Fosse’s film places much of the focus on the emotional turmoil of Liza Minnelli’s Sally Bowles, and the character of Cliff Bradshaw is Anglicised as Brian Roberts (Michael York) in the film (as Sally was Americanised), though their respective character arcs remain largely unchanged from the original musical. The main sub-plot of the stage musical involving a doomed romance between a Jewish fruit seller and an elderly German landlady is changed to the doomed relationship between a younger German couple who are both Jewish in the film. Fosse’s film is notable for his distinctive dance choreography and for confining all but one of the musical numbers to the stage of the Kit Kat Klub, and telling the rest of the story in standard narrative drama form.

The portrayal of the character of the Emcee (Master of Ceremonies) at the club varies greatly across the various adaptations. Acting as the face of the Kit Kat Klub, he interacts with the audience, sings, dances and provides commentary on the key events in the story. He often appears omnipotent, even supernatural, and fully aware of his, and Germany’s current position and future as much as the watching audience. He’s usually camp, flamboyant and implied to be sexually deviant. He serves as narrator, host and guide in Cabaret’s story.

It’s the portrayal of the Emcee I’d like to focus on here. He was most famously played (creepily, but sympathetically) by Joel Grey in the film, but Will Young’s take on the character in the latest UK revival is something entirely different. Young portrays Emcee as an abusive, grotesque, tormented and tormenting demon. Whereas the character is usually an innocent victim of the Nazi’s rise (promoting as he does very anti-Nazi ideals), here he is shown to be a facilitator, a collaborator. He’s the National Socialists’ man on the inside, a corrupting influence in Germany’s entertainment industry to fit the party’s own ends, despite presumably being on their list of undesirables. Though he’s more of an outright antagonist in this latest production, you can’t help but sympathise at the end when it is revealed his steadfast support of the Nazis didn’t absolve him of his lifestyle choices in their eyes. Young’s Emcee is what makes the 2012-13 production so distinctive, impactful, even terrifying, and proves that the pop star has real acting muscles ready to flex.

The 2012 Cabaret revival is an angry and passionate production, an unexpected gut-punch. It demonstrates the unstoppable force, the horrific power and influence of the National Socialist Party in early 1930s Germany, and implies their coming to power was all-but inevitable, whereas previous versions of the story emphasised a more subtle, slow corruption of Germany. Cabaret has always been a dark musical, but never this black and blatant, and it effectively shocks because of these artistic decisions.

You could perhaps argue that this latest production lacks elegance, and certainly argue that it lacks subtlety compared to previous productions and Fosse’s film, and that’s true – the heartbreaking, powerful and eerily beautiful Nazi rally song “Tomorrow Belongs to Me” is here sung by Young’s Emcee atop a pulpit whilst controlling dancers on stage with swastika-topped strings. Then again, you could also argue that is thematically appropriate for the story, as there was nothing subtle about the Nazis’ rise to power.

While no-one will likely dare to tackle Cabaret on film again any time soon (Fosse’s adaptation is just too iconic), the stage show will be continually revived in different forms for years to come. A Broadway revival is due next year, enticingly starring Alan Cumming and Michelle Williams, and directed by Sam Mendes.

Cabaret is the kind of story that benefits from repeated reinterpretation – it’s a layered and complex tale of humanity and inhumanity that can be read in a variety of ways. The 2012 UK show will stay with me for a long time because it dared to do something different with a well-known story. The songs and orchestration were all present and correct, but the story trappings were in a new form, all to fit a particular purpose. I don’t see it as superior to Bob Fosse’s film adaptation, it’s just very different. SSP

Posted in Film, Film Feature, Theatre | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Review: Brick (2005)

Posted on September 27, 2013 by Sam S-P

brick_1

BRICK is the kind of film that really shouldn’t work. The premise: a hardboiled detective film set in an American high school. It’s a unique combination of disparate ideas, and somehow everything comes together and makes for a fantastically weird and wonderful end product.

We follow Brendan (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) a self-imposed social outcast and self-styled high school detective, who investigates the baffling disappearance of his ex-girlfriend who had fallen in with a bad crowd. His obsession with finding the truth inevitably leaves him further down a rabbit-hole of lies, deceit, crime and violence, involving emotional and physical torment for Brendan and others along the way.

Before I delve into Brick’s position as a modern noir film, I’d like to emphasise that, despite most avid fans of cinema thinking they know exactly what film noir is, it remains a subject of contention among film academics. The term was coined by French critics (it literally means “black film”) to describe a run of similar American imports they were watching for the first time post-WWII. Some see it as an easily identifiable genre, just as the Western or gangster film (the hats, the long coats, the lighting), while others see it more as a loosely thematically linked group of films. Personally, I see it as the latter, mostly because of how noir has changed and been hybridised to such an extent since its initial popularity in the 1940s.

The blend of a bright atmosphere and vivid characters with an undercurrent of darkness and depravity in Brick reminded me most of Robert Altman’s THE LONG GOODBYE, another film that brought a dark, grimy film trend into the light without diminishing its harrowing subject matter. Rian Johnson also pays homage to several other iconic examples of film noir in Brick (notably THE MALTESE FALCON). Aside from the unconventional setting and young ages of the characters, everything – performances, dialogue, aesthetics (anyone who says noir can’t be in colour can’t have seen CHINATOWN) and plot structure is straight out of classic film noir – sometimes taking cues from noir’s initial run of popularity in the 1940s, and at other times being more influenced by its revisionist revival in the 1970s.

The film looks incredible, with striking shot composition and bold editing, the characters are memorable, and the cast, especially Gordon-Levitt and Nora Zehetner make Johnson’s rapid-fire, Chandler-esque script crackle with energy. The plot moves along brusquely, but never feels rushed, and you’d be hard pressed to see most of the twists and turns coming. Perhaps the leaps of logic Brendan makes towards the end of his investigation are a little hard to fathom, but you could argue that’s simply in-keeping with other hard-boiled detective films – the gumshoe always has to be one, two, or even three steps ahead of the audience – and Brendan helpfully sums up his findings at the film’s conclusion anyway.

Brick adheres to the formula and style of the detective films of Hollywood’s Golden Age, but transposes events and characters to a bizarre (for noir) location. This allows Johnson to explore the boundaries of the detective genre, and of noir filmmaking sensibilities in a unique and fascinating way. In the end, he suggests that it doesn’t matter where a film noir is set, whether it’s the big city in the dead of night or in and around a school in broad daylight, whether the characters are neurotic, passion-driven adults or neurotic, passion-driven teenagers, a noir film just gives you a certain “feeling”.

Last year’s time-travel noir LOOPER was my introduction to the genius of Rian Johnson, and now I’ve seen his stunning debut feature Brick, he’ll certainly be a name I’ll look out for. It’s nice to see there’s still plenty of creative individuals in American filmmaking…well, in independent cinema, anyway. SSP

Posted in Film, Film Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Ooo, you big tease, Ultron!

Posted on September 27, 2013 by Sam S-P

Well the teaser trailer for THE AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON that many saw at Comic Con this year has finally landed in shiny HD online. Obviously, it’s just a teaser, and nothing (as far as we know) has actually been shot for the 2015 film yet. It just features voiceovers from the last film and a little animation, but that in itself is interesting, implying the direction the final film might be heading.

In the Marvel comics, Hank Pym a.k.a. Ant-Man created Ultron (to be played by James Spader), but Edgar Wright’s ANT-MAN is due to be released two months after Age of Ultron, and everyone involved is insisting that he won’t be playing a part in Joss Whedon’s super-ensemble sequel.  So, the big question is, in the Whedonverse, who makes the big metal baddie?

It’s long been rumoured that the most likely candidate is Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) and the above teaser seems to confirm that, what with Iron Man’s helmet breaking down and morphing into Ultron’s head. This makes narrative and thematic sense – after IRON MAN 3 appeared to imply Stark was semi-retiring from the superhero business, maybe he makes Ultron to do his job for him. Of course, this also gives us the ever-reliable Frankenstein-esque arc of “I created this evil, so I must stop it” which will add real dramatic weight to the events on screen (and perhaps force Mr Stark to suit up again).

Not much more to say, really – it’s just the initial teaser after all. Less than two years to go… SSP

Posted in Film, Film Comment | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iron Man 3: Marvel’s Gambit Pays Off (In My Opinion)

Posted on September 23, 2013 by Sam S-P
iron-man-3-iron-men

The whole gang’s here: Marvel Studios

The general consensus about whether Shane Black’s IRON MAN 3 is any good seems to be split about 50/50. Personally, I loved it – it’s a bold, pacey, sometimes dark and nearly always funny hero-in-crisis movie. I see it as the high point, not only of the Iron Man series but of the wider Avengers film series so far.

I do understand the perspective of the other side, I get some of the reasons why they dislike IM3. Some people don’t want to see a broken down, unstable Tony Stark. They want him to be charismatic and cool like he was in the previous three (counting THE AVENGERS) films. They want him to pull off loads of awesome feats in shiny high-tech armour, and expect a similar amount of action to Joss Whedon’s super-epic from 2012.

First off, objecting to a character being developed, to moving forward or being challenged mentally as well as physically is a dumb and shallow argument that will see the superhero film genre stagnate and become completely and utterly pointless. Secondly, not even Marvel/Disney can afford to do something of Avengers scale twice a year. We won’t see anything like it again until 2015 when AGE OF ULTRON emerges. Finally, Tony Stark having to conquer adversity without all his toys was an important character point, emphasising Stark’s ingenuity and survival instincts, in addition to in a sense restoring him to his factory settings, what he has and always will be – “the mechanic”. The limited time he spent in the suit also makes the few set pieces all the more spectacular, and worth the wait (particularly the sweeping multi-suited final battle).

But of course, the one issue that has comic fans especially foaming at the mouth is the treatment of Iron Man’s arch-nemesis The Mandarin. In the comics, he is arguably the villain, and his presence has been hinted at and hugely anticipated since the first IRON MAN (the terrorist organisation who captured Stark at the beginning were known as “The Ten Rings”). It’s the modern equivalent of The Emperor being built up for two and a half of the original STAR WARS Trilogy. Most of the trailers for the film put heavy emphasis on The Mandarin being a credible and deadly threat – a terrorist mastermind appearing like a hybrid of Osama bin Laden, Colonel Gaddafi and Kim Jong-il, the ultimate enemy not only for Iron Man but for “The Land of the Free”. (In case you haven’t yet seen the film and don’t want to know the big half-time plot twist, here’s the obligatory SPOILER ALERT). You see, about halfway through IM3, a suitless Tony Stark infiltrates a compound from which The Mandarin has apparently been sending his terrifying television broadcasts, and coordinating his attacks. He stumbles into a dishevelled bedroom to find that his ultimate enemy is…a drunken English thespian called Trevor Slattery (Ben Kingsley). The Mandarin was a think-tank fabrication, a terrorist designed by committee to prolong the war on terror to make money. The real big bad was Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) the puppet master behind The Mandarin, the deadly Extremis virus, and essentially Stark’s whole second life as Iron Man (he’s been running his operation for years, and carefully planning his revenge on Stark for refusing to give his research any attention).

Now I can understand why this might annoy some fans, who expected a “faithful” vision of The Mandarin on screen – basically, Shane Black, Drew Pearce, Kevin Feige and the rest of the creative muscle behind the Marvel Cinematic Universe are saying “the comics are not holy scripture, and we’re willing to make drastic changes to the material if need be”. The big twist wasn’t even hinted at in the marketing – as far as anyone could tell, we were getting a straight-faced version of The Mandarin (though now I think about it, we never did see anything more than a couple of shots of him, so we should have guessed something was up). While some might see this as sacrilege, I see it as a positive development. Marvel/Disney aren’t giving the comics the middle finger, but are really saying that “we could go anywhere, and we will surprise you”.  It’s not like we didn’t get to see a serious version of The Mandarin – it’s what Iron Man is essentially fighting at the film’s climax.

Do you realise how much of a joy it was for me to be genuinely surprised by a superhero film again? I adore superhero films, but since THE DARK KNIGHT, WATCHMEN and KICK-ASS, I thought the genre had become a creative dead end, that there was nowhere left for it to go, except bigger (see: THE AVENGERS). FollowingIron Man 3, which refused to be limited by the comics, there is now so much potential for the genre, and future Marvel films especially hold great promise.

Even without the massive twist, Iron Man 3 is a success. It takes the character of Tony Stark (not to mention Pepper Potts, Rhodey, and even Happy Hogan) somewhere new and dangerous, gives the trilogy a fittingly exciting send-off and brings Stark’s journey pleasingly full-circle. Shane Black really does bring the best out of Robert Downey Jr (just watch KISS KISS BANG BANG) and the script co-written with Drew Pierce is witty, brave and hilarious. Some have criticised the film for being too comedic in done, but I disagree. I’m much happier now superhero films are willing to laugh at themselves again following the “ever so serious” Dark Knight trend. The plot as a whole is essentially a gripping, stylish and well-constructed sci-fi espionage film – it’s very James Bond-y, and is a refreshing change of pace from the all-out alien invasion epic that was The Avengers. For the sheer level of creativity and ambition to be different, Iron Man 3 is better than its two predecessors, it’s also better than The Avengers and any of the films that built up to it. If not for X2 it would be my favourite of all Marvel superhero films. Feel free to disagree, I’ll be here. SSP

Posted in Film, Film Feature, Film Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

When Russian Film Came in From the Cold: Night Watch and Day Watch

Posted on September 22, 2013 by Sam S-P

nightwatch4

This article was originally written for Subtitled Online July 2012.

The Russian fantasy blockbusters NIGHT WATCH (2004) and DAY WATCH (2006), written and directed by Timur Bekmambetov and based on the novels by Sergey Lukyaneko, are far more relevant to Russian filmmaking than you might initially realise.

Let’s be honest here, Night Watch isn’t a particularly good film, and the sequel Day Watch is a modest improvement – at best. The films follow a centuries-old war between people with supernatural powers serving either the forces of light or the forces of darkness. Both films have a distinctive, oddball visual style, and some original and creative ideas, but they are also both incredibly tonally inconsistent, the acting is hit-and-miss and their plots are nigh-on impossible to follow unless you’re keeping notes from the start, such is the richness and complexity of the lore of the novel series the films are based on.

While both have their glaring weaknesses, the Watch films are in fact rather important to modern Russian cinema. A big-budget production at an estimated $4,200,000, and funded by the government-owned Channel One Russia, Night Watch was the country’s first real entry to Hollywood-style blockbuster territory, and represented the country’s belated return to large-scale film productions after the collapse of the Soviet Union and its film industry over a decade earlier.

Night Watch broke box office records in Russia, and when the sequel Day Watch was released in 2006, it repeated this feat by becoming the highest-grossing film ever in post-communist Russia, surpassing the previous $20 million record held by the 2005 war film 9th COMPANY. Although Night Watch was undeniably an entertainment phenomenon in its native country, some Russian critics dismissed it for pandering to Hollywood and for betraying traditional Russian filmmaking practices.

When it was first released, Night Watch was a unique spectacle in Russia. It was the beginning of an epic fantasy saga following vampires, witches and shape-shifters locked in an eternal battle between good and evil – it was the epitome of high-concept escapist entertainment. The film was brimming with unique and unusual ideas, and had striking and expensive-looking visual effects and big, technically complex stunts – elements which were only refined and improved upon in its sequel. It was a world away from anything else being made in Russia at the time. There’s certainly a stylistic influence from huge-scale Hollywood franchises like THE MATRIX and BLADE, and also from international filmmakers working in the fantasy genre, such as Guillermo del Toro and Terry Gilliam – and this is all the more remarkable when we consider it was created within a film industry that has had to be rebuilt from the ground up over the past twenty years.

Around 100 visual effects artists were employed to meet the more technically demanding aspects of the two films, and although not quite the quality of Hollywood special effects, the computer-generated visuals in the films are unusual enough to be striking. The films don’t hold back on the discussion of big philosophical ideas either – not only do they debate the nature of good and evil, but also the unfixed, fluctuating nature of each moral extreme. There are also some imaginative twists on traditional film depictions of vampires and the occult.

Russia has contributed greatly to film on the world stage from the birth of cinema, and it goes without saying that The Soviet Union film industry produced far, far better films than Night Watch and Day Watch. When you can boast the names of such masters as Sergei Eisenstein and Andrei Tarkovsky, the writer/director of the Watch films Timur Bekmambetov, cannot compete. Bekmambetov went on to direct WANTED and ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER in Hollywood, which were hardly any more impressive or consistent (though Abe was at least pretty fun).

As high-concept spectacle, the two watch films are arguably the first of their kind, and arguably started an entirely new trend in Russian film, which means that Russia might one day be able to compete with the juggernaut that is the Hollywood blockbuster – perhaps not in terms of extravagance, but in terms of providing viewers with something a little different and more spectacular to entertain them. Without Night Watch and Day Watch, and the film industry recovery they helped to facilitate, we might never have seen such high-concept modern Russian epics such as 2007’s MONGOL, and that would be a real tragedy.

The Russian film industry’s recovery following the collapse of the Soviet Union was protracted and difficult, and it took the bravery and boldness of the makers of Night Watch and Day Watch to prove that Russia could still pull off big-budget filmmaking. The scale and ambition of these two fantasy blockbusters changed the landscape of modern Russian entertainment forever, and promises an interesting future, both for native and international film audiences. SSP

Posted in Film, Film Feature, Film Review, Subtitled Online | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Werewolves, Crawlers, Romans…Trolls

Posted on September 22, 2013 by Sam S-P

Neil Marshall is set to direct the American remake of André Øvredal’s Norwegian found footage horror TROLL HUNTER (2010), and pre-production is expected to begin shortly.

The Brit is known for well-constructed and stylish genre films such as the mortifyingly claustrophobic horror THE DESCENT (2005), Romans-in-Britain thriller CENTURION (2010) and his squaddie vs. werewolf masterpiece DOG SOLDIERS (2002). Troll Hunter seems the perfect material for Marshall to turn his hands to – he likes stories featuring gruesome monsters in desolate locales, and he rarely looses sight of his characters amongst gory spectacle.

I’m not usually one to back American remakes of films from around the world (though I loved LET ME IN), but I’ve got high hopes for this one. I found the original Troll Hunter a little dull and lifeless, and found the handheld filming style more of a distraction than an aid to the storytelling (the novelty of found footage films expired long before the Norwegians turned their hand to it). No word yet on whether the handheld filming style will be maintained in the remake, but I hope it’s not. With a talent like Marshall on board,  he could breathe new life into the material, and bring with him his passion for blood and beasties, as well as his versatility at helming small-scale projects (like Dog Soldiers and The Descent) as well as larger ones (the epic “BLACKWATER” GAME OF THRONES episode) depending on the budget he’s given. It’ll be interesting to see how much of the original’s uniquely Norwegian mythology will be maintained, and where in the world this new take will be set.

The Troll Hunter remake will rear its ugly head…at some point, and I’m looking forward to it. Neil Marshall is currently busy filming things on the small screen (though you could hardly call Game of Thrones small) and seemingly doesn’t have any other film projects – troll-related or otherwise – in the pipeline. That might change following his Hollywood debut. SSP

Posted in Film, Film Comment | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Film Confessional #3: The Wicker Man (2006)

Posted on September 20, 2013 by Sam S-P

20130731175243wickerman_2

I have a confession to make…I like THE WICKER MAN remake. It’s not the icon of pagan horror the original British film was, but I still found it a fairly diverting and eerie way to spend 100 minutes.

The one question you always have to ask of any horror film is of course – is it scary? No, The Wicker Man remake isn’t particularly scary, but like the original film it has a slow build-up of tension and sense of unease, in addition to some unnerving imagery. It gives you a constant feeling of dread rather than a succession of sharp shocks (though there are a couple of those). Again, like the original, the final scene is a truly horrifying spectacle, faithfully recreated, and is a great payoff to all that build-up.

The changes Neil LaBute made to the original screenplay has, admittedly made his Wicker Man more of an exploitation film. Arguably the Robin Hardy/Anthony Shaffer film exploited the stereotype of pagans and their weird little rituals to scare, but the remake goes further by turning the island community into an all-female cult of man-hating psychotics. It’s not a huge issue I had with the film, and I don’t see it as outright misogynistic (no more so than any other monstrous feminine horror) it’s just an observation.

I know Nicolas Cage is over-the-top (as always) but he does good “guy with issues”, and I like his character, and his guilt-ridden motivations make sense, even if he lacks the effortless screen presence of Edward Woodward. And I know “No! Not the bees!” is one of the worst lines of dialogue in history, but it’s so hilarious I don’t care. Ellen Burstyn makes for a strong, sinister villain too, and a worthy and different enough successor to Christopher Lee’s Lord Summerisle.

I’ll admit the dialogue is flat (despite often being lifted from the original film), some of the performances are a bit off to say the least, and you can see the supposed plot “twists” coming far too soon.

I love 1973 The Wicker Man, and think it deserves it’s position as a groundbreaking, hugely influential horror film. The remake is admittedly not in the same league as its predecessor, but I don’t think it lessens the impact of the original, and you can see the two films as simply a different take on the same material. There have been far worse, far more offensive horror film remakes (don’t get me started on A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET) and far weaker Nicolas Cage films (GHOST RIDER). Arguably the remake’s biggest failing is that it doesn’t star the ever-reliable Christopher Lee and Edward Woodward (they sadly both passed on making cameo appearances).

I know many people’s disdain for this particular film is unlikely to change, so I’ll probably remain in the minority here, but what more can I say? In my humble opinion, The Wicker Man remake isn’t half bad. SSP

Posted in Film, Film Feature | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Review: The Hunt (2012)

Posted on September 18, 2013 by Sam S-P

01_Mads_Mikkelsen_in_church_TheHunt_FramegrabPhoto_by_Charlotte_Bruus_Christensen

Thomas Vinterberg’s frank and intelligent discussion of society’s instinctive, well-intentioned, but sometimes damaging reactions to reports of child abuse is immediately recognisable as a Vinterberg film. Like his breakout Dogme 95 masterpiece FESTEN (1998), The Hunt dares to tackle a challenging subject that most filmmakers would rather avoid in an engaging, no-nonsense manner.

We follow Lucas (Mads Mikkelsen) a divorcee nursery worker loved by his friends and by the children he cares for. Though he lives alone with his dog, his life seems to be getting back on track – he finds his job fulfilling, he gets a girlfriend and his teenage son Marcus (Lasse Fogelstrøm) wants to move back in with him. His favourite at the nursery is Klara (Annika Wedderkopp), the daughter of his best friend Theo (Thomas Bo Larsen) and the pair are inseparable – Lucas is Klara’s second father figure and devoted friend, Klara is the daughter Lucas never had, and the one person he can just have a normal conversation with (his close group of friends are a loud, brash, juvenile rabble). One day Klara sees Lucas play-fighting with a group of boys at the nursery and tries to join in, but being a little girl not prone to random acts of pretend violence, she gives him a kiss instead. At this Lucas tells her in no uncertain terms that this wasn’t appropriate for a little girl to do to a grown man. Klara reacts unexpectedly to this apparent rejection of affection and starts spreading rumours about Lucas around the nursery. Upon hearing her claims that Lucas exposed himself to the children, the head of the nursery Grethe (Susse Wold) begins legal proceedings and Lucas is condemned forever in the eyes of his nearest and dearest as a child molester.

The main aim of The Hunt is to ask whether the way Western society deals with accused sex offenders is justified. The film pretty openly criticises the tendency for most people to jump to conclusions and morally condemn someone at the merest hint of child-related inappropriateness. Not that Vinterberg is advocating for us to go easy on paedophiles, but rather that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Take, for instance, in the UK, the recent police “Operation Yewtree”. A highly publicised Metropolitan Police investigation that was opened after evidence of DJ and TV presenter Jimmy Savile’s extensive and repeated sexual abuse of under-aged girls coming to light following his death. The investigation lead to the arrests of a number of other British TV presenters and entertainers who were alleged to have committed connected, or similar acts of abuse to minors. Due largely to extensive media coverage, the slightest whisper of a well-known face being questioned by the police caused the British public to brand the accused as a paedophile. While evidence has emerged to commit several men in addition to Saville, others were released without charge, and had suffered months of torture and unfounded hatred at the hands of the media and the public because of the wrongful accusations. Clearly The Hunt deals with a different situation in a different country, but as a UK resident Operation Yewtree was the most recent comparison that came to mind.

I find it fascinating that we have Mads Mikkelsen in the lead role as Lucas, as while has played a variety of roles in his native Denmark, on American screens he is generally cast as a villain (CASINO ROYALE, THE THREE MUSKETEERS, TV’S HANNIBAL). From the start we are presented with a protagonist who looks “a bit off”, so we can on one level understand how quickly he is outcast. Clearly his accusers think the same – it only takes the word of a little girl against his to ostracise him from the community, and destroy his life.  If he more conventionally good-looking, more talkative and didn’t live alone with his dog, would he still be accused without hesitation? Would he still be accused if he wasn’t the only man working in a nursery? Needless to say, Mikkelsen is mesmerising in the role, and the heartbreaking performance he gives  as his world collapses around him is the glue that holds the entire film together. He can say so much with a single facial expression, but of particular not is the scene where Lucas makes a stand. He is abused, beaten up and physically thrown out of a supermarket because of what he is supposed to have done. Broken and bleeding, he shakily stands up, brushes himself down and walks straight back into the supermarket to claim his discarded shopping. He quite rightly won Best Actor at Cannes.

The title is symbolic for a variety of things. “The Hunt” immediately conjures images of the barbaric, paranoia-fuelled medieval witch hunts, in addition to being a story about the hunt for the truth, the hunt for proof Lucas’ innocence and the mark of uncertainty placed on his head for life – no matter what the evidence says, there was that moment of doubt, and he will always be the hunted. We are constantly reminded of these layers of meaning as Lucas and his son get to spend time together, and go hunting for deer. In a sense, in society’s eyes Lucas (and by extension, his faithful son) have become hunted game, creatures that could justifiably have been killed. This point is hammered home shockingly in a  moment in the film’s final act.

While the writing and performances in the film are exceptional, we also can’t overlook the fact that despite it’s horrific subject matter, The Hunt is a beautiful film. Vinterberg and his cinematographers appear to have put an incredible amount of thought into every single frame. Each shot is painstakingly set up, and the Autumn/Winter Danish landscape strewn with frost and dead leaves looks equally striking and bleak, appropriately enough for the film’s subject matter.

Carefully constructed, flawlessly performed, emotionally draining and undeniably brave, The Hunt reaffirms Thomas Vinterberg’s position as one of the most talented and thought-provoking figures in world cinema. Like Festen, The Hunt makes for deeply uncomfortable, yet captivating viewing, and also like the Dogme film it’s uncompromising in dealing with the complex and divisive subject of child abuse. The film wasn’t even considered in any category at the 2013 Academy Awards, which doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. The Academy, after all, likes their films challenging, but not too challenging. SSP

Posted in Film, Film Review | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

The World Cinema Monster Spotter’s Survival Guide

Posted on September 18, 2013 by Sam S-P

nazi_zombies1

This article was originally written for Subtitled Online March 2013.

Ever feel like there are just too many things that go bump in the night to keep track of? Do you need help in recognising exactly what is making you cower in horror, and where the hell it came from? Well, look no further than this handy monster-spotting guide, organised by country, with advice on what kind of horror you can expect to find on your travels abroad according to the movies…

JAPAN

What to watch out for: Spirits (various)

Key films: RINGU (1998); JU-ON: THE GRUDGE (2002); DARK WATER (2002)

Japanese horror (or J-horror) is pretty much inseparable from the supernatural. Traditional Japanese folklore and fables provide a near-endless selection of creepy ideas for horror filmmakers to draw upon. You can usually spot a Japanese ghost by chalk-white skin (the ghost child Toshio in JU-ON), a dank, jet-black, face-obscuring curtain of hair (Sadako in RINGU) and a thirst for violent revenge (pretty much all of them).

If you want to avoid being quite literally frightened to death by such terrifying spectres, try not to play any unlabelled video tapes just in case they’re cursed (if you somehow still own a VHS player) and try to avoid moving into suspiciously cheap accommodation in case something nasty happened there and the victim wants to take it out on you from beyond the grave.

MEXICO

What to watch out for: Vampires and cannibals

Key films: CRONOS (1993); WE ARE WHAT WE ARE (2010)

According to Mexican horror films, towns and cities can be dangerous places. Never mind run-of-the-mill criminals and shady characters, you just might bump into a blood-craving vamp in a public bathroom (who may or may not be as morally complex as Jesus Gris in CRONOS), or far more terrifyingly you may run afoul of a threat that is all too human – a warped family of ritualistic cannibals (WE ARE WHAT WE ARE). The giveaway for what is tearing into your flesh will be down to whether you can detect signs of life – both may appear bestial, but if you can see it breathing and sweating it’s a cannibal; if it looks like it’s rotting before your eyes, it’s a vampire. Whatever you do encounter, there will be bucket-loads of blood spilt, and it’s highly likely that it’s all going to be yours.

NORWAY

What to watch out for: Nazi zombies and trolls

Key films: DEAD SNOW (2009); TROLL HUNTER (2010)

Whilst travelling the snow-covered forests of Norway, pick your place of rest carefully, and be on the lookout for long-forgotten legions of undead National Socialists who may be hiding out in the darkness (DEAD SNOW). If the swastikas on their arms don’t give them away, then their relentless pursuit of the contents of your head will, as might the fact that they refuse to stay down even after being disembowelled.

If you’re thinking of a more off-road Scandinavian journey, then make sure you don’t wander into the habitat of seldom-seen, government-protected trolls (and if you do, then why not try and film your experiences like in TROLL HUNTER?). Avoid roomy caves and the underside of bridges, and keep something that smells as bad as the creatures of Norwegian folklore close to hand if you want to avoid becoming lunch for a hideous behemoth.

SPAIN

What to watch out for: Ghosts and zombies

Key films: THE DEVIL’S BACKBONE (2001); [•REC] (2007)

Depending on whereabouts in Spain you plan on visiting, your scary experience will likely be quite different. If you take a tour of isolated wartime orphanages, be wary of drowned little boys holding a grudge (like THE DEVIL’S BACKBONE’s Santi), but if you’re in the city, avoid apartment blocks lest you’re quarantined when a zombie outbreak occurs ([•REC]). Either way you’ll likely find yourself trapped in creepy confined building with something none-too-friendly snapping at your heels.

If you’re interred with the decomposing, hungry living dead, then the outlook looks pretty bleak (especially if you’re chased into a dark attic room), but if it’s a child spectre pursuing you, then you might just have a chance if you play Scooby Doo and get to the bottom of a mystery…

Hopefully, this guide will prove useful on any future holidays to foreign shores. If you spot the signs soon enough, you could escape with your lives intact. Or if you don’t, then at least you’ll have the small comfort of knowing what form of terror took it from you. SSP

 

Posted in Film, Film Feature, Subtitled Online | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

My Clichés! I Can’t See Without My Clichés!

Posted on September 16, 2013 by Sam S-P

dennis

There are a few plot, dialogue and aesthetic elements that are used time and time again in movies that drive me to despair. Whether it’s through lazy screenwriting, lazy direction or just because filmmakers think they have to conform to what has come before. Here’s a countdown of my bottom five (hint: the worst is in the title).

5. Horror Move Behaviour

Thankfully this one has been spoofed for years with the SCREAM films and THE CABIN IN THE WOODS, so you rarely see this played straight-faced now. But a few decades ago, especially when Teen Slasher Movies were at their height, you could guarantee the morons on screen would go check the cause of an ominous noise, stumble into a darkened cellar alone and any number of other dumb things. Stupid, illogical behaviour to facilitate the plot moving forward, in other words.

4. “We have a situation/we’ve got a problem”

This one depends on the film genre (almost exclusively in Hollywood) you’re working in – if it’s a war or disaster movie, then someone always bursts into a bunker or war room and “has a situation”. If it’s a crime thriller or gangster movie then someone “has a problem” which needs to be “dealt with”. Cinematic shorthand it may be, but it’s also the epitome of screenwriting laziness. This was stale in the 90s, but it’s still used by sub-par filmmakers (Michael Bay) and even some good ones (Paul Greengrass) to say “we can’t be bothered with exposition” or “come see what we’re going to be doing for the rest of the movie”. It’s not a terrible idea to use this shorthand in order to “show, not tell” but it’s still overused.

3. They get together in the end…

I’ve not no problem with romance in movies. If you’re actively building up a relationship between two characters throughout a film (say, in a rom-com), or there’s a hint at a hidden attraction from the start, then fine – the payoff is very rewarding for the viewer. But why the need for characters to snog at the climax of a film just because they can? Lead man + lead lady does not = automatic chemistry. It often feels forced, pandering, and a cheap trick designed to beef up a film’s otherwise lacklustre ending. It also seems to be the Hollywood default position (especially in regards to marketing) and has been so since before the Golden Age so this one probably won’t be disappearing any time soon…

2. “NOOOOOOOOOOO!”

This is usually wailed after the death of someone the character cares about, accompanied by an exaggerated crane shot and the actor jerking their face up to the heavens. It’s been done too much in cinema, and lacks the dramatic impact it might once have had. It just too easy to make fun of now, to the extent that Darth Vader’s “noooo” from REVENGE OF THE SITH has become a meme, and the rest were expertly spoofed in the paintballing episode of SPACED.

1. “My glasses! I can’t see without my glasses!”

A confession – my most hated cinema cliché I take as a personal affront to me. Hollywood, take note: if you wear glasses to correct your vision, you don’t make a fuss if they fall off your face. You especially don’t explain your predicament, and the drawbacks of your poor vision without ocular enhancements out loud to the world. Do film audiences realise people who wear glasses have trouble seeing without them? They do? Then why are visually impaired characters forced to make such ludicrous statements? As much as I adore JURASSIC PARK, I don’t understand the need for Dennis Nedry (Wayne Knight) to scramble around looking for his specs for 30 seconds in the rain (though I do like his realisation of “I can afford more glasses”). Velma used to do it in SCOOBY DOO on TV, don’t put it in your movie, it comes across as painfully cartoonish.

Are there any more egregious examples of Hollywood clichés? Feel free to comment. SSP

Posted in Film, Film Feature | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment