Warning...

OnePlusYou Quizzes and Widgets
Showing posts with label intellectual horror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intellectual horror. Show all posts

16/01/2009

The Living and the Dead (2006)



I really don't know how to classify this movie - but that's not a bad thing at all. Let me try to explain...

Attention: screenshot - intensive.




The Brocklebanks are a weirdly dysfunctional family. Father Donald Brocklebank has, at the verge of bankruptcy, decided to leave the family manor Longleigh House for London, to get treatment of his terminally ill wife Nancy. The main problem, though, isn't Nancy's disease - it's their son, James, a young man who is a little bit... unstable.




I may have to define my use of the term 'unstable' a little bit more: His breakfast consists of medication. A lot of it. I have to take a lot of meds in the morning, but my pharmaceutical breakfast looks ridiculous compared to the amounts that James is taking - even when he's under-medicating himself. Because James needs his medication.





James seems to be on the verge of psychosis most of the time, his erratic behaviour getting more extreme. He seems to be aware of his condition, shooting himself up with medication, which seems to calm him down (I'd like to know what it is that he's injecting himself with).




His father, who has to leave the mansion they're living in (without any people working for them - it's just Donald, his wife and his insane son) and who appears to be strict, harsh even when dealing with James, shows a touching side of a father's love for his son when he finds him early on in the movie, a wound on his head from banging it against various objects, passed out on the kitchen floor. He may be harsh, but he does care for James - his pale, erratic son...






Something will go wrong, we realise, as James decides not to shoot himself his much-needed medicine the morning after his father has left for London.




He tells his mother that he will take care for her whilst her husband is away, and that the nurse which is supposed to do that cannot come. His mother is suspicious... and worried. She is bedridden and cannot care for James... who would need being cared for just as much as she does.




At minute 26, there is a sudden change in the tone of the movie. An urgency is gained that has not been present before, and it will be with us at certain times throughout the rest of The Living and the Dead.

Hectic. The focus shifts from James' mother to himself and his frantic experience of the world around him - dissociative, breaking apart. He reminds me of some of the schizophrenics I have met in associated hospitals, and his distorted perception of time also seems familiar, though in a less insane way. It hits a nerve... or two.




James decides to lock out the nurse (Sarah Ball) when she arrives, and this, for some reason, sends the woman into some nameless, urgent feeling of dread and panic. She leaves, and James is left with his mother - who doesn't want him to stay with her any longer, as she clearly sees the change taking place in her unstable, demented son.




He feeds her pills that she doesn't want to take, obviously scaring her. His aggression becomes more and more intense, and he's forcing her to swallow more pills after he attacks her. She has difficulties breathing and wants to speak to his father, but he becomes even more erratic and aggressive, yelling at her that he "is the man in the house".

Finally, his mother throws up the pills, and he is devastated, screaming and yelling at her while she flees in her wheelchair...




James has degraded into a raving madman as he watches his mother flee, falling out of her wheelchair onto the stairwell.




The second day arrives... and James doesn't take his medication. Again. And now, the movie truly begins... taking us with it on a meandering, surreal path through mind, illusion, reality and time - down the rabbit hole, towards the abyss, where Da'ath lurks, and with it - madness and despair.






This movie tells a story - a long, sad story, one of madness and loss, of pain and dissociation from reality. Its language is mainly the medium of pictures - it is hard to convey in words what each of those pictures alone says, on a multitude of levels. Opulent in its simplicity, I am confident to say that this movie is brilliant in its optical execution of a dreamlike, surreal experience that bespeaks a philosophical depth rarely seen in a conventional horror movie.




The eyes drink in the ever growing intensity of the pictures and scenes, whilst the mind struggles with making sense of it - what is real? What is illusion? What is future, what is past? Is there something like reality? What is madness, and what is not? Or is all madness? Time loses meaning, becomes something we cannot make sense of anymore. The Living And The Dead blends the various scenes and episodes that take place in a seamless way which creates the illusion of coherence where none exists - for there is no coherence left within the depths of psychosis.




This brings me to the second strong point of this movie: the acting. As we are following only three characters throughout the whole movie, we can see them in a variety of scenes which help to define their personalities. We know next to nothing about them - but yet we see into their souls, into their fears, despair and inner struggles - and their insanities. And all three main protagonists are doing a really great job.




Which impressed me most was the performance of Leo Bill, who played James Brocklebank (thank you, imdb.com, for the information on the family's last name). His portrayal of the character was most convincing, and he brought an unexpected depth to the staple idea of "the lunatic". It's because of him and through him that we experience the mixing of reality with illusion, of hallucination with reality, of hallucination with hallucination, of reality with reality. Kudos to him. His portrayal of body-wrecking physical and mental agony that comes in advanced stages of certain forms of psychotic attacks was stunning, and I applaud him for it.




There was a merciless realism to his portrayal of psychotic, dissociative behaviour. It touched me, because this is something very personal for me. It hits too close to home to be entirely comfortable.




Also impressive was Roger Lloyd-Pack, who played James' father, Mr. Donald Brocklebank. He certainly is a good actor, and although his performance was outshone by that of Leo Bill, he still brought life and depth to his character. Personally, though, I find that Kate Fahy ranks in on second place when it comes to the portrayal of the depth of a character. She plays James' mother with a natural ease that betrays her experience as a mother (this by no means implies that her kids are in any way like the fictional character of James Brocklebank). She's a really good actress for this sort of characterisation, as her portrayal of different emotional states was very convincing.




The stories we are being shown in The Living and the Dead are brilliant - because they are real, each single one of them. No matter what version of reality you want to see or will see if you don't embrace all of them as equally real - you will be touched.




It is a dreary movie - there is no joy in it, for even those precious few moments are overshadowed by the gloomy atmosphere of Longleigh House.




Much of the dark, but achingly beautiful mood of the movie is carried by the setting of the old, decaying manor. Set entirely within those brooding walls, the merciless maze of versions of reality gains an extra depth, one that perfectly represents the isolation which is such an integral part of The Living and the Dead.




Isolation - it rings through the movie as a central theme, made out of hollow echoes of bleak despair. Longleigh House is isolated, far outside in the countryside, far away from help. Donald Brocklebank is isolated - all wealth is lost, his wife terminally ill, and his son is lost to him. Nancy is isolated - her health is falling apart, and so is her family and her dreams. And James... James can't even reach outside himself, confined within the fractal madness of his own broken mind, fractalised, dissociative, fraying out at the borders. Reality - lost; to him as well as to us.




The camerawork is outstanding as well. Simon Rumley (who wrote, directed and produced The Living and the Dead) truly shines with this movie - it is executed nearly flawlessly on all levels. The use of light and shadow are brilliant, the camera's angles unusual but highly effective, the frantic editing of some scenes are blending seamlessly into the movie as a whole whilst still delivering the intensity and hectic, dissociative sense of urge that is so characteristic of James' perceptions, the pictures are beautiful... Flawless.




Weaving a net of sounds and impressions is the language. The dialogues never seem artificial or forced - there is, again, a stylistic minimalism at work here, which adds a particular feel of loneliness and - again - isolation to this piece of art. And the soundtrack by Richard Chester is of particular intensity as well. It is hard to describe, but the music has the effect of a painter's few final, highlighting strokes with the brush against the painting as a whole. It is admirable.

I don't know what to say.





11/10

14/07/2008

Eraserhead (1977)

This is my first David Lynch movie.

...need I say more?

Eraserhead is one hell of a confusing movie. I like to think that I get the imagery employed by Lynch when it's about sexual themes like impregnation, fuc... errrr, making love, giving birth etc., but most of the movie was simply... well, not entirely lost on me, but partly lost on me. I'm sorry, I'm apparently not enough of an intellectual to appreciate the classics.

First things first (after my initial opening): Our protagonist, Henry Spencer, has creepy eyes. He's first seen sort-of floating in space, with a rocky planet which I tentatively identify as an artistic rendering of the Moon (I know that the Moon isn't a planet, thank you very much) in the background and apparently somehow connected to his brain.


This is the friendly man who apparently operates the... Moon? Henry's brain? Henry's Limbic System? I'd vote for #1 and #3 combined, as the Moon has a very strong sexual connotation in the Western Hermetic tradition (or even the Greek myths and all that), and the Limbic System is the "fight, fuck, survive"-center of our brains. So... yeah. Creepy man apparently controls our protagonist's sexuality through the Limbic System.

We then get treated to a deep canyon on the Moon. It literally looks like a birthing channel... and the transition goes from it being fully lit to it being completely dark. Directly after that, a Brain-Sperm-Spine-monster floats out of our protagonist's mouth and is dropped into a pit.




This pit looks quite creepy. It is filled with some sort of fluid, and I can't help but think that this symbolises impregnation. The pit as a symbolic metaphor for the vagina. How fitting.

The plot? Oh... the plot. Henry Spencer gets his sort-of (spasmic) girlfriend Mary pregnant, and she gives birth to... something. He then has to care for it, and it screams and cries and... makes noises, which slowly drives him insane.

At this point I should probably mention that our protagonist, Henry, looks miserable throughout the whole movie.

The thing that this movie really has going in favour of itself is the black and white optic (I adore B&W), the appropriately weird music (freaky!), the post-industrial landscapes with all those tubes and machines constantly working, never resting, and the blank windows, covered up with bricks and cement, staring onto the streets and into the rooms with blind, dead, unseeing eyes. The camerawork is also great, the shots are really beautiful.

One of the things I mentioned above is something of a weird thing, though. I mentioned that the windows are covered up with bricks and cement. As we mostly perceive the movie and respectively the world in which the movie plays through Henry's eyes, it might very well be that he just perceives the windows to be closed and covered up. His girlfriend's (if that term can be applied) windows are quite normal. So... reality or dream?

2
4
1
6

The sounds are creepy. There is hardly any dialogue in this movie - which I think is very important. Dialogue would destroy the desolate, creepy, lonely and surreal atmosphere that Lynch clearly aimed for. This movie is carried by sound effects, lighting and pictures. Thumbs up for that. I like movies with only a little dialogue.

This movie also treats us to fist-sized chickens that are, well, just like real chickens. With one difference: If you cut them, they start bleeding and... losing... fluids... and twitching in a definitely orgasmic sort of rhythm. And make sex noises.


Sounds squishy. Reminds me of sex-noises, sickeningly enough. Thank you, David Lynch.



It also makes the nice, elderly lady to the right ORGASM, She gets turned on by a twitching, oozing fist-sized chicken. Freud, anyone? Thank you again, David Lynch. It is nice to know who to blame the next time I have chicken and recoil in terror.

"They are still not sure if it is a baby!"
...if you ever hear those words outside of a movie, know this: Sounds like trouble.

So, we find out that Henry and Mary had pre-marital sex, and that Henry is now a Dad - of a "they are still not sure if it is a baby"-baby. Unsurprisingly, he doesn't take to these news too well.

This woman (Mary) is caring for...



HOLY FUCKING SHIT!


That is NOT a baby. However you define baby, no matter how much you dislike babies (like me): This. Is. Not. A. Baby. Although it reminds me of the funny story of the exorcist of Vienna who aborted a demonic-reptilian-monster-baby, as told to me by one of the leading experts on Magick in Vienna, a 17-year-old Magister Templi (of his own order, consisting mostly of 15-year-old girls...).


I repeat: This is NOT a baby.

The sound effects of Eraserhead are great, especially when you play the movie loud. The "baby" is screaming. And I mean SCREAMING. CONSTANTLY. Annoying the Nine Hells out of everyone, including myself.

...and does anyone else think that it sort of looks like a cute dinosaur baby?

Anyways... Mary, who in between two scenes moved in with our protagonist Henry in order to care for the ..."baby"... decides to move out when she gets really, REALLY nervous from not getting enough sleep because of the screaming and crying reptilian/non-human brat she bred together with sweet Henry. So she does the only sensible thing and leaves him with the... "baby".

And I'll be damned, that thing is SCREAMING. Whenever Henry tries to leave the flat, the... "baby"... starts being annoying. Fucking annoying. Reminded me of that:


The First Primordial Malice from Beyond Time and Space, my cat Rincewind. He starts yowling every time I leave the flat, even if it's just for bringing down the trash, as well. I can sympathise with Eraserhead's protagonist's suffering.

That aside, we get treated to some weird dream sequences. For example...


WTF is THAT?!?!

IT is "dancing" amidst a slow rain of brain-spine-sperm-thingies. At the end of this dream sequence, it steps on the... thingies. I'm sure there's a lot of symbolism behind it - the destruction of virility and life, a disapproval of... uhm... non-Christian sexual practices like masturbation (the seed/sperm-stuff falls onto the ground, vaguely reminding me of the story from the Torah/Old Testament about Onan and his *cough*sin*cough*...)... lots of stuff. I just really can't be arsed to either watch the movie again or spend an hour thinking about it. So ner, there you go with my half-assed assessment of this scene's symbolism and significance.



I have four more pages scribbled full with notes, which shows that I actually paid attention to the movie. However... not today. I might update this review tomorrow, but for now, let me end on this note:

Lots of sexual symbolism and imagery, weird dream sequences, crazy part with erasers being made out of Henry's head (hence the title), killing of creepy "baby", suicide. Point.

Edit: I just got motivated to complete this review. I just can't, though. Sorry. If some day, you'll see a bright green line exclaiming "ERASERHEAD UPDATED!", then you'll know I managed to do it. But goddamn it, not tonight. I don't want to read those notes and make coherent sentences out of them anymore, and most of all, I don't want to dwell on the movie's symbolism anymore.
Wait for the update, if you're interested.

There. So much for my motivation. This whole movie just killed it.


Neutral 5/10 scenes that only make sense when you read up on psychology and the movie's history.

10/07/2008

The Plague (2006)

First of all: No, Clive Barker didn't really have anything to do with this movie. It's not Hellraiser, or Midnight Meat Train, or Nightbreed. So if you're like me and are expecting cool stuff when you read the words "Clive Barker" - don't bother to watch this movie. It's not bad, but it's not good either. It's... just there.

Second: If you're a gorehound and expect something nifty - don't.

A short synopsis: One day, at exactly the same moment, all children all over the world under the age of 9 become catatonic. Well, most of the time. Twice per day, they suffer from violent tetraspasms (I don't know if this word is just a German word or not, because apparently, my dictionary doesn't know of its existence, nor does Wikipedia, but damn it, I have been diagnosed with it and want to use the term now in order to show off how infinitely cool I am), aka twitching and flailing of the limbs. Also, you only see the white of their eyes... hell yeah.
The children remain in this state for 10 years; all the children born in those 10 years are born comatose. I personally envision a beautiful, silent world with that premise, but maybe that's just me and my natural distaste for children. Children are creepy, loud, annoying little buggers, and I could do without them.

Maybe its this intrinsic distaste I personally have that did not exactly make this movie a success on the creepy-scale in my eyes. The thought of all children becoming catatonic is more interesting than creepy to me. The thought of babies being born in a coma is something I think of as awesome and cool. Maybe people who like children, or are parents, would see this film in a different light, so anyone out there who reads this and actually has some sort of positive relationship with kids: Watch it and tell me if it's just me and my personal perception of the cute little futures of humanity (*shivers in terror*) or the movie. I vote for the latter, but then again, that's just me.

People in the movie say that the children are "shut off from the world". Well, being catatonic doesn't necessarily mean that you don't notice what is going on around you, so I'd be rather careful with statements like that - especially in the light of what happens 10 years after the children suddenly went away...

Long story short: They wake up and start killing adults. Being an adult myself, I find the thought of being hunted by a group of children unnerving. Not in the "damn, what a creepy thought"-way, but in the "holy crap, that would be the most annoying thing ever"-way. I don't know if it was intended to come across as such, though. But just imagine it: Four 6 year old kids and one 15 year old sister are following you with the intent to kill you. Terrifying, isn't it? You can kick the smaller ones, and there sure as hell is something handy around to deliver a good blow to the taller one's head.
Then again, maybe it's that whole "I don't like children, so the thought of having to fight my way through hordes of kids is actually entertaining and something I'd volunteer to as long as I get a weapon in order to inflict proper damage"-thing I have going on. Somewhere, there is someone to whom the thought of kicking a child, or shooting it in its head, is a disgusting, terrifying one that would induce slight nausea (I mean come on, the little buggers are sooooooo cute...). I apologise to those people that I actually find it hilariously funny to see kids getting hit with stuff. Unfortunately, there is not enough damage done to the little "we just got up and want to kill you all"-flowers. Damn it, little Timmy woke up slightly angry (or whatever generic children's name you want to choose to mock the movie's terrifying premise).

The movie has its moments, though. At one point, we see the comatose children/teenagers. They are clothed in poor, ill-fitting clothes, each of them lying on a flat, simple "bed" - rows and rows of them, filling a highschool gymnasium. They are stacked, denied even the most basic things such as proper care and a blanket to cover them. It's at this point that you realise that things aren't exactly perfect, and that the whole world is probably dealing with this problem in the same way. Society doesn't know how to deal with the comatose kids, so they just ...put them away - a well-known, centuries old tradition. Have a problem with people you don't know how to deal with? Put them away. It doesn't solve the problem, true, but at least you don't have to face what you don't understand.
Considering this, I'd be in the mood for some killing as well after waking up. The problem is: The movie is incoherent when it comes to its premise of "you reap what you sow" (I fucking had to read a synopsis of "The Grapes of Wrath", a book that is often eluded to in the movie and has strong ties with it. I don't like North American "literature", so I want to state here officially that I go through hardships and pain like none of you can understand for a review that no one is going to read of a movie like "The Plague"... *sighs*). If the kids are angry at the world and how they got treated - why does Eric (one of those lovely little buggers) kill his father who spent ten freaking years doing nothing but caring lovingly for him? I don't get it. Seriously.

Looking at my notes, I see that I made some about the characters in this movie, but trust me when I say that they are really not important. This movie could have been done with any other combination of characters - it's not about them and how they cope with the situation of being hunted by mobs of angry, weird children, it's about the idea and premise behind the movie. Problem is, it fails to convincingly deliver said idea/premise. I still can't really figure out what the thing was about. And no, I am not going to torture myself by watching it again - it would just be boring, and I wouldn't pay any attention to it anymore.

Another thing I have a slight problem with is the following:

What the hell is this plague? What caused it? Why? What happened to the children? Why did they develop a hive mind? Why do they kill people? Why do they apparently commit random acts of violence with some adults they kill, and only snap the neck of another one? What is it with "every time they kill someone, they put their hands onto their eyes and take their soul"?! Why do they mutilate that one woman in the bathroom? Is that in any way helping with the soul-thing, or was the killer-kid just a particularly psychotic one? Why do they run around like zombies? WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED?!

*takes a deep breath*

There you go, that's what I have a slight problem with.

I would love to say that the phrase "Teenage Zombies" never made so much sense, but... they're not zombies. They're not dead. Or undead, for that matter, although directly after they wake up, the movie changes into a zombie survival horror flick for a short while. I liked that part, although it was severely lacking in the gore department (I am willing to forgive that, though, as this movie was apparently destined to be broadcast on TV, so I understand that they don't want to show the doubtlessly educated and civilised people making up the audience terrible things like intestines, blood or brains). Still nice little episode, though. Trapped with something akin to teenage zombies in a highschool at night! I have to admit it, I found that part nifty.

At this point I want to add one thing: Producers and directors of movies - please, please, PLEASE. If you show a close-up of someone shooting up someone with morphine, do some research. I was confused. Why did the supposed nurse hold the syringe in a nearly 70° angle? Why did she ram the needle all the way into the arm? I know, it is one of those cool props you filmmakers have, but seriously. If you want to be realistic, please inform yourself how to properly instruct the actress to, well, play someone who knows how to actually do something like using a syringe. The way you showed it, she cleanly shot the morphine directly into the muscle after ramming it through the vein, for whatever reason there might be. Special American Nurse trick? It's especially weird if you know how fucking painful it is when a needle goes through the lower wall of the vein. Trust me on that - years of experience with hospitals and incompetent nurses and doctors have made sure that I know. So, please: Use your props in a more realistic way.

Anyways, it's a confused movie. Intellectual and philosophical "horror" (with very little horror being actually present), a plot that I am not quite sure if it deserves the name... confused. I'm sure that the idea it wants to convey is something worth pondering, but the movie just failed to actually convey the idea. I mean, I'm still a bit "WTF?!" now... which is not a sign of me having totally understood the plot. Maybe I'm just dumb, but I severely doubt that (Sartre couldn't beat me, so a movie like The Plague will hardly succeed where French Existentialism failed...).

But it's not a "bad" movie. As I said at the beginning of this review... it's just there. Nothing more, nothing less.

A neutral 5/10 for... nothing in particular.