BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR... "SEVEN PSYCOPATHS"

Now, the name of this film does not give much away. I mean, it does and it doesn’t. As you probably guessed, from the trailer and from the name, yes, it is basically about seven psychopaths. Basically.  There is quite a hefty dose of violence mixed up in all of this. Come on, we are dealing with psychos here. But it is also about something you might not actually expect. Creativity. We all know that any sort of creativity – writing more than most perhaps as it is such a solitary occupation when you get down to the nitty-gritty of it – is a bit of a battle. But of course no man is an island. And if you have not chosen your friends as wisely as you could have done, they might well leak into your creative endeavours to create what we might call an “explosive” mix… Especially in Hollywood the land of dreams…

Marty  ( Colin Farrell) is a struggling screenwriter trying to place together his “next hit” – a screenplay called “ Seven Psychopaths”. Now, the title may be catchy but sadly it is about as far as Marty has got. Billy (Sam Rockwell), an actor who is not all together very stable himself, is Marty’s best friend and as such is dying to use his own rather original approach to get Marty out of his predicament. There is, however, a very slight problem. It involves actual psychopaths. And the head of a gang (Woody Harrelsson) who is out to basically kill them all. There’s a Shih Tzu in the mix. And of course, an almighty shootout at the end, worthy of the name “Seven Psychopaths” – or so Billy hopes anyway. Well, one thing is for sure. If he makes it out of this mess alive, Marty really is going to have one heck of a story to tell.

As you will be able to tell from the get go, there is not one iota of material that is “serious” about Seven Psychopaths. True enough, there are some moments of “genuine” emotion, but only to serve as a breather for the onslaught of absurd comedy that reigns supreme throughout the show.

Now, the onslaught of absurd comedy is not a bad thing. Nor is the profusion of violence – as long as you don’t mind that sort of thing. The film is a bizarre one. I suspect that a lot of people will see a lot in it that they like. But almost definitely some things they don’t like. Stylistically the film is quite “modern”. Multiple characters and merging storylines (the name of the script should be a hint here), each slightly larger than life and the previous hero come together to form the film. This means very slick and quick editing and a lot of laughs / emotion based exclusively on violence. In fact, I have just found the word I was looking for, it’s cartoonish. I’m specifically thinking of Road Runner and Wiley E. Coyote, where more and more elaborate weapons come out as the two immortal cartoon heroes “duke it out”. While this is all well and good as entertainment and for some, you may well want a tad bit less pointless bloodshed (by pointless I mean for comedic value only – or close enough for it not to matter), fewer characters and slightly fewer “branches” on the storyline. Or at least branches that are tied together a little more “tidily”. I feel you. I kind of feel the same way. But on the other hand, I honestly doubt this film was ever made for serious dissecting. It is loud, bawdy fun and you should take it as such. Or not take it at all if you don’t have a stomach for violence – but that’s another story all together…

THOUGHTS ON ONE OF THE EPICS: "THE DEER HUNTER"

Oh, I’m pretty sure that those of you who know of this film sort of sat up in your chairs and took notice when you saw the name. I know. There is a lot to say about this film. Which is precisely why I reckon we should say it. As you guys know by now,  I usually only go for films that I like, unequivocally. But with a film like the Deer Hunter, the thing is you can’t help being emotionally involved in it at some level, but then again you may not necessarily love / like it. Well, I was affected by it. And there is a ton of stuff to say about this film. So maybe we should leave the “like” pre-requisite to one side? Hm, hang on. I see a theme emerging. But first, The Deer Hunter.

The Deer Hunter is a Vietnam story. It is the story of war and how it affects the inhabitants of a small industrial town. Nick (Christopher Walken) and Michael (Robert De Niro) are best friends. They and their gaggle of friends in this small close-knit town have pretty average lives, going hunting and boozing together – not to mention working together, day in, day out. Then, however, war erupts. And the two boys, along with their friend Steve, go to Vietnam to serve their country.  The horrors of war are absolutely unspeakable and when Michael, our hero, returns he is not the same person. However, a promise means he has to return to Vietnam and come face to face with his demons. And the demons that haunt his friends…

Now, I have gone down the more lyric route and done my best not to give away spoilers but it is such a famous film a lot of you know the score, I am pretty sure of that. In fact, this was talked about, in fact became quite a controversy back in the day. I am of course, talking about the infamous Russian roulette scenes, where our three heroes are forced to play Russian roulette with each other by their captors. In the first place, let’s jump right in and point out that not only has it been argued (quite eloquently) that this is completely inaccurate, the portrayal of the Vietnamese borders quite heavily on racism. They are all despicable psychopaths with no morals, who often take great pleasure in torturing others and they almost all harbour this bizarre addiction to Russian roulette – or watching it. Granted, it makes for a very emotional build-up and the climatic end (that naturally involves Russian roulette) made me jump even if I could see it a mile away.

This one is funny. I mean, it almost really touched me. But something was missing. I am unsure what. The fact that I watched it in several chunks – as opposed to in one sitting – no doubt has something to do with it. Then again, the film is a proper old fashioned epic; it’s almost 3 hours long. Cimino’s aim was, no doubt, to have a Godfather-like effect. The dates fit, it has to be said. The film even starts with a wedding. We have the main guys, but the thing is we follow them around. For far too long. The aim is, no doubt, to establish emotional connection and this does happen on a level. I really felt Christopher Walken was, for example, great for this part; especially with his looks as a young man, he is the perfect, tragic poetic hero. And Robert De Niro is… Well, he’s Robert De Niro. So duh, of course they’re both brilliant. But I don’t know. The film is, I think, trying far too hard to be epic. And it’s doing this for three hours flat. At some point, you start to seriously glaze over.

And there is the whole matter of the afore-mentioned racism against the Vietnamese and the seriously nationalistic – American – overtones. But I don’t know, the thing is, it’s an important film. It does some good stuff. I mean, there are a lot of poetic things in there, far too many for my liking but you may spot something you like. I am pretty sure you won’t like it all. But at the very least, this is an important film of cinematic history. You kinda need to see it, if only to know why you don’t like it. That’s my opinion on the matter anyway.