If the aim
of first time director Nick Whitfield was to make a film that would make his viewers talk
about it and think, I can guarantee you, he has succeeded. I have so much to
say about this film but I am completely unsure where exactly I want to begin. Or
how to begin. Yes, this is going to be a long one peeps. And as you can guess,
not all I have to say about it is praise. But then again, the film has sort of
wormed its way into my heart, so much so that I reckon you should watch it. I’d
be fascinated to find out what you make of it. If nothing else, you can have a
good old rant about it…
Bennet and
Davis are psychic exorcists. Their job is, basically, to get into people and
reveal the skeletons in their closets. You might, at this point, wonder what the
point of such a job is, but take a look at their clients, for example there is
a young couple preparing to get married who want to take this step before they
get married – as a show of devotion if you will . Or there is a middle aged
couple who want to try it partly out of their interest in alternative therapies
of all sorts, partly to better their relationship. But the latest case Bennet
and Davis have to deal with is unusual. On the surface it seems like a
relatively average job – a woman wants the team’s help to relocate her missing husband.
However, the moment they arrive at the house, it is clear to our heroes that
something is wrong. And it is not just their own personal demons. It turns out
there is a reason a massive promotion is attached to this case. It truly is
their toughest one yet…
Now… Where
to begin. I love so many things about this film. Not least the fact that the
director has chosen to portray our psychics as very, normal people, very human.
Hollywood tends to add an air of “mystique” to the whole affair, fair enough I
suppose. But I have always thought that it is not exceptional looking people
with deeply noble characters that should have “powers”. No, I think if you
think about it realistically there would be an infinitely greater chance of them
being normal looking people with very normal strengths and weaknesses.
Then there
is the whole concept. The world the film creates is highly original and yet so
very close to our own that one cannot help getting sucked in from the first
moment. All this despite, and here I come to the first weakness of the film as
I perceive it, the minimal, almost non-existent explanation of what the heck is
going on. I get what has been attempted here. In avoiding all Hollywood-style
clichés, the aim is to create a “12 Monkeys” ish feel. You know, the story
slowly unravels. We don’t truly get what’s happening until the last instant. It
all falls into place at the eleventh hour. I get it, I respect what has been
done. It is my humble contention it doesn’t work. Even if you want the audience
to work out what is going on in its entirety without any “explanation”, you
should at least give them enough clues to go on. The complete and utter lack of
information is, I think, the reason a lot of reviewers online wrote things like
“oh they’re ghostbusters or something” in their reviews. It is very tempting
and completely understandable to lose patience with the process entirely. Because,
fact, you cannot feel “included” in a story if, at the back of your mind, you
are constantly trying to work out what the heck you are watching.
I mean, yes
there are films like this. And if it were not for the ending, you could argue
that, the director was trying to present a different, completely unconventional
viewing experience, you know, a more “cutting edge”, “existential” feel, sort
of mixing the sensation of watching a film with watching a fly on the wall
documentary. But the ending… It’s basically a message about not dwelling on the
past and looking to the future and it is given in the most sugar-coated,
Hollywoody, “family unit reunited”y (yes Mom, I know that is not a word, I’m
trying to make a point) style imaginable. You know how allergic I am to “very
happy” endings. What’s that I hear? I’m not to be a misery-guts? What is wrong
with happy endings I hear you ask? Now hang on a minute. I’m not arguing
against happy endings all together as a concept. I’m just arguing for them to
be a little truer to real life.
I’m
thinking, for example of Nuri Bilge Ceylan’s latest film Once Upon A Time in
Anatolia (check out my review here if you have never heard of it ). I would
argue, for example, that , contrary to appearances, that film does actually
have a happy ending. Why? Because the character of the prosecutor is brought
face to face with a truth he has been in
denial about for a long time. This denial and his refusal to cope with the
matter in hand have been holding him back in his life. He is, at the end of the film, shown a clear
path. What he should do to go on with his life. True, he is surrounded by
pathos, the other characters do not have such paths out of the sadness that
surrounds them, but the prosecutor seems generally interested in truly healing
himself and no longer being content with “stop-gap” solutions. Now that’s a
happy ending. That is real character development. I mean think about your own
characters and how they have developed over the years? Did any of it happen in
a matter of days / weeks? Were you transformed, as if by magic, or was it a
slower, “baby steps” affair? Quite. Ceylan presents his happy ending by showing
the moment of awakening and hinting at the transformation to come. There is no
need, I would argue, for arrows and neon lights. Especially in a work that has
so many very original and different features to it. It is a brilliant film
though. I would have done it slightly differently but hey. What’s the point of
art if we can’t discuss these things?
Kayıtlar
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder