Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Violent History
WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! LOOK FOR ALERTS!
Every once in a while I watch something that keeps me inexplicably transfixed. A film that draws me in until I find myself making strange faces or other bodily reactions to what I'm watching. Mind you, I'm not talking about the kind of reactions you would expect from a bunch of drunken frat boys and a horror movie. I'm talking about real gut reactions. I'm talking about being truly affected to the core by some inexplicable quality of the film. This happened a few weeks back when I finally got around to watching Steve McQueen's (the artist, not the actor) first feature length film Hunger.
If you've seen the film, perhaps you know what I'm talking about. It's available on Netflix Instant, although if you're a quality snob, the people at Criterion Collection released a Blu Ray for it earlier this year. Is about IRA member Bobby Sands, who was a key player during the No Wash prison strike during the Thatcher era, in which the IRA were attempting to force the British Parliament to recognize them as political prisoners and not as terrorists.
The film lingers heavily on the psychological effect of prison treatment on both the prisoners and the guards using slow photography and cold textured lighting. It stuck with me for a good long time, but I wanted to let it gestate before talking about it further. McQueen is an expert with his camera, showing all the filth and the fury involved in the strikes. It reminded me greatly of some of the cinematography of Orson Welles' films; long moving shots, refusing to cut when one would expect it, forcing the viewer to be with the film at precise moments and there by getting under the viewers skin.
There are some hard scenes to take in, especially knowing that the film is based on fact. Michael Fassbender commits wholly to his character, once again doing a fantastic job in his portrayal of a man fighting for his conviction against all odds. That is not to say that the film is totally one sided. McQueen also gives us a glimpse into the life of a prison guard and a young riot officer, both of whom are affected violently, both physically and mentally.
Sands commits fully to his ideals and we watch as a strong man, full of vigor, is reduced to a shrunken, shriveled skeleton of a man, before death takes him. We are left with the sensation to cherish our innocence while we have it, because, as history has shown, it can all come crashing down to a wretched and violent end.
For all it's grittiness and it's heavy subject matter, Hunger, is a beautifully shot film about a tense and ugly situation in the history of the United Kingdom. 'The Troubles' as they have been called, left a huge scar on the psyche of the people and films such as Hunger can only attempt to examine those scars so that true healing can begin. I look forward to getting out to see McQueen's second feature (also starring Fassbender) Shame.
Every once in a while I watch something that keeps me inexplicably transfixed. A film that draws me in until I find myself making strange faces or other bodily reactions to what I'm watching. Mind you, I'm not talking about the kind of reactions you would expect from a bunch of drunken frat boys and a horror movie. I'm talking about real gut reactions. I'm talking about being truly affected to the core by some inexplicable quality of the film. This happened a few weeks back when I finally got around to watching Steve McQueen's (the artist, not the actor) first feature length film Hunger.
If you've seen the film, perhaps you know what I'm talking about. It's available on Netflix Instant, although if you're a quality snob, the people at Criterion Collection released a Blu Ray for it earlier this year. Is about IRA member Bobby Sands, who was a key player during the No Wash prison strike during the Thatcher era, in which the IRA were attempting to force the British Parliament to recognize them as political prisoners and not as terrorists.
The film lingers heavily on the psychological effect of prison treatment on both the prisoners and the guards using slow photography and cold textured lighting. It stuck with me for a good long time, but I wanted to let it gestate before talking about it further. McQueen is an expert with his camera, showing all the filth and the fury involved in the strikes. It reminded me greatly of some of the cinematography of Orson Welles' films; long moving shots, refusing to cut when one would expect it, forcing the viewer to be with the film at precise moments and there by getting under the viewers skin.
There are some hard scenes to take in, especially knowing that the film is based on fact. Michael Fassbender commits wholly to his character, once again doing a fantastic job in his portrayal of a man fighting for his conviction against all odds. That is not to say that the film is totally one sided. McQueen also gives us a glimpse into the life of a prison guard and a young riot officer, both of whom are affected violently, both physically and mentally.
The film really, to me at least, is an attempt to show the pointlessness and the sheer loss that results from such violent bull headed ideologies. When the No Wash strike fails, Bobby Sands announces a Hunger Strike, where the film takes it's name from and McQueen doesn't let the audience off easy.
SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!
END SPOILER! END SPOILER! END SPOILER! END SPOILER! END SPOILER!
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Psychoanalysis Sounds Better
David Cronenberg and Viggo Mortensen have been on a roll for the past few years. After the smash success of History of Violence and the follow-up Eastern Promises it would appear that they have definitely become a hit making director/actor team reminiscent to the days of Scorsese/DeNiro. While their newest venture, into the early life of Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud may not prove to be as successful as it's predecessors, it is none-the-less an intriguing film.
The film begins with the introduction of Sabina Spielrein, played by Keira Knightly, being carted, kicking and screaming to the Burghölzli, where she became a patient of Jung (Michael Fassbender). It becomes clear very early on that Jung is the central focus of the story, passing through time as he attempts to secure his place in the budding field of psychoanalysis. He develop's a father figure in Freud and through interactions with both, his own theories start to emerge further.
The film is well shot and there is great attention to the period detail. The performances were all quite solid, featuring interesting dynamic range from all three principle actors. However, there was something seriously lacking in the pacing of the film. Perhaps, this is due to lack factual evidence or even due to the writing. True enough, the script was written by playwright Christopher Hampton, based on his play The Talking Cure and as such, pacing can become an issue when presented in the film medium. Now, add the fact that it's a play adapted from a nonfiction novel, John Kerr's A Most Dangerous Method, effectively making it an adaption of an adaption.
The beginning of the story seems to push forward rather quickly, almost as though it's trying to satisfy the audience expectation of the interactions between Jung and Freud. The films real power lies in the fallout of the central conflict. Watching the character interactions amid scandal, as friendships become rivalries, makes some pretty enjoyable cinema.
As we know from history, Jung and Freud's friendship was a short lived one. Both ambitious men, the dinosaur and the babe, the audience watches them simultaneously nurture each other and destroy one another as well as themselves in the process.
One of the other main plots is the affair between Jung and Spielrein, which has an interesting psychoanalyzed approach to S&M. Whether or not their relationship was as such is up to much speculation, but it is generally believed that some type of extramarital relationship developed between the two. Cronenberg, has always been known for sexuality being a central theme in his films, but I felt like this film conveyed the psychological power dynamics involved in sexual relationships, more so than any of his previous films.
An interesting film, worth a watch for sure, but definitely more for fans of Cronenberg than for people interested in the history of psychoanalysis. That is, of course, not to say that it doesn't have some very intriguing moments examining early psychoanalytical practice, but that is not the focus of the film.
The film begins with the introduction of Sabina Spielrein, played by Keira Knightly, being carted, kicking and screaming to the Burghölzli, where she became a patient of Jung (Michael Fassbender). It becomes clear very early on that Jung is the central focus of the story, passing through time as he attempts to secure his place in the budding field of psychoanalysis. He develop's a father figure in Freud and through interactions with both, his own theories start to emerge further.
The film is well shot and there is great attention to the period detail. The performances were all quite solid, featuring interesting dynamic range from all three principle actors. However, there was something seriously lacking in the pacing of the film. Perhaps, this is due to lack factual evidence or even due to the writing. True enough, the script was written by playwright Christopher Hampton, based on his play The Talking Cure and as such, pacing can become an issue when presented in the film medium. Now, add the fact that it's a play adapted from a nonfiction novel, John Kerr's A Most Dangerous Method, effectively making it an adaption of an adaption.
The beginning of the story seems to push forward rather quickly, almost as though it's trying to satisfy the audience expectation of the interactions between Jung and Freud. The films real power lies in the fallout of the central conflict. Watching the character interactions amid scandal, as friendships become rivalries, makes some pretty enjoyable cinema.
As we know from history, Jung and Freud's friendship was a short lived one. Both ambitious men, the dinosaur and the babe, the audience watches them simultaneously nurture each other and destroy one another as well as themselves in the process.
One of the other main plots is the affair between Jung and Spielrein, which has an interesting psychoanalyzed approach to S&M. Whether or not their relationship was as such is up to much speculation, but it is generally believed that some type of extramarital relationship developed between the two. Cronenberg, has always been known for sexuality being a central theme in his films, but I felt like this film conveyed the psychological power dynamics involved in sexual relationships, more so than any of his previous films.
An interesting film, worth a watch for sure, but definitely more for fans of Cronenberg than for people interested in the history of psychoanalysis. That is, of course, not to say that it doesn't have some very intriguing moments examining early psychoanalytical practice, but that is not the focus of the film.
Friday, December 2, 2011
The Serpent and the Spider
If you know me, you know that I'm an avid fan of asian cinema, particularly the cinema of Japan. I go to great lengths to find films that are otherwise impossible to find in America, simply because I like the Director's work. This is achieved through websites like Yes Asia and various other means, such as bootlegs and torrents.
When he moved to Horror/Thriller, with Cure, the story about a bizarre link in a series of killings, he was on the cusp of leaving "product films," but at the challenge of a producer friend of his he made two more, in the space of 1 and 1/2 weeks. Not an easy feat, let me tell you.
One Director, whose work I come back to somewhat frequently, is Kiyoshi Kurosawa (no relation to master film maker Akira Kurosawa). Most of his films which have received release in America fall into the supernatural, horror, and thriller genres, but some of his lesser known films were genre pieces. Like many director's cutting their teeth in the late 80s and early 90s, Kurosawa made his fair share of Direct to Video/TV Movie features. Films like the Suit Yourself or Shoot Yourself series, or Door 3 are examples of this.
When he moved to Horror/Thriller, with Cure, the story about a bizarre link in a series of killings, he was on the cusp of leaving "product films," but at the challenge of a producer friend of his he made two more, in the space of 1 and 1/2 weeks. Not an easy feat, let me tell you.
Those films are The Serpents Path and Eyes of the Spider.
Both films are revenge stories and both films involve a character named Nijima (played by Sho Aikawa), and yet completely different in pace and tone. The Serpents Path, for example, plays like a traditional revenge/detective procedural with a few interesting twists along the way. Nijima is a math teacher who helps a low-level yakuza track down a group of people who were all involved in the rape and murder of said yakuza's 8 year old daughter. We are drawn in because we do not understand until later why Nijima is helping this man. He has an enigmatic quality about him. Why would a man who teaches math at a cram school to students young and old (one of which is an 8 year old prodigy) risk his life and his career to help a low-level thug? Is it out of empathy or does he have an ulterior motive? Does he NEED to have a motive? These questions kept me hooked, regardless of my small laptop screen and awful speakers.
On the other hand, Eyes of the Spider, is completely different. It misleads the viewer into thinking it is going to be another standard revenge procedural when instead the revenge aspect of the story is resolved within the first 10 minutes of the film.
The core premise is the same, with a few important differences. This time, Nijima, who is NOT a math teacher, but some kind of salaryman, is the father of the victim. An average man, he goes to the extreme and finds his daughter's killer himself after 6 years of searching. After satisfying his revenge, his life becomes devoid of meaning and he drifts through each day until a chance meeting with an old high school friend has him leave his salaryman life and enter that of a low-level yakuza gang. The film has a much more philosophical tone and Nijima has to deal with issues like the validity of life and the effect of his actions on his own soul. What is right and what is wrong when the whole world seems to be absolutely insane? And what about consequences?
The world, as we know it, always finds a way to give consequences to our actions. It is no different in films than it is in life. Spider does an excellent job of showing the consequences to all the characters actions, whether they are physical or metaphysical in nature.
Despite these glaring differences, their are also structural similarities that needn't go unlooked. Each film starts with the revenge plot, each film has a bloody climax, and each film has an open ending that begs certain questions from the viewer.
Unfortunately, these films still do not have domestic release, but if you're internet savvy, you can find a way to see them. Definitely worth the watch.
Note: I am in no way, shape, or form, condoning piracy to the readers of this review. As such, I will not be held responsible for the individual actions that any person who reads this review makes.
On the other hand, Eyes of the Spider, is completely different. It misleads the viewer into thinking it is going to be another standard revenge procedural when instead the revenge aspect of the story is resolved within the first 10 minutes of the film.
The core premise is the same, with a few important differences. This time, Nijima, who is NOT a math teacher, but some kind of salaryman, is the father of the victim. An average man, he goes to the extreme and finds his daughter's killer himself after 6 years of searching. After satisfying his revenge, his life becomes devoid of meaning and he drifts through each day until a chance meeting with an old high school friend has him leave his salaryman life and enter that of a low-level yakuza gang. The film has a much more philosophical tone and Nijima has to deal with issues like the validity of life and the effect of his actions on his own soul. What is right and what is wrong when the whole world seems to be absolutely insane? And what about consequences?
The world, as we know it, always finds a way to give consequences to our actions. It is no different in films than it is in life. Spider does an excellent job of showing the consequences to all the characters actions, whether they are physical or metaphysical in nature.
Despite these glaring differences, their are also structural similarities that needn't go unlooked. Each film starts with the revenge plot, each film has a bloody climax, and each film has an open ending that begs certain questions from the viewer.
Unfortunately, these films still do not have domestic release, but if you're internet savvy, you can find a way to see them. Definitely worth the watch.
Note: I am in no way, shape, or form, condoning piracy to the readers of this review. As such, I will not be held responsible for the individual actions that any person who reads this review makes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)