DEEP RED AND THE HANDS OF A MASTER...

You know you have to smile sometimes when critics bang on about how we are desensitized, how technology means that we expect more and bigger thrills and more stimulus, it is easy to dismiss films made earlier in the 20^th century as “easy watching”. Especially when it comes to genres like horror where we have come to depend so much on special effects. I am thinking, for example, of the upcoming horror film Crimson peak by master director Guillermo Del Toro – the fantastic and eerie world we see (so far only from the trailers) could not have been created if it were not for the magic of technology.

That said, in the right hands, the technology of the ‘70s can become a dangerous and terrifying tool. Dario Argento is, without shadow of a doubt, one of these directors. The atmosphere he creates, the world we are plunged into is so chilling that our imaginations are more than enough – we do not need the monsters of technology…

Deep Red begins with a psychic, a psychic who inadvertently sees into the mind of a murderer. And who promptly gets murdered herself. A passing pianist gets pulled into the story. There is a plucky journalist and a cynical police officer. In the midst of this setting the psychic’s prediction seems to be quite on the mark. But the problem is, whenever anyone gets even remotely close to uncovering a clue, there is another grizzly murder. Our pianist, an eye witness to the whole affair, is in especial danger as he has come closer to the murderer than he might have liked. Yet, his time seems to be rapidly running out and the police seem helpless as his allies fall around him like flies and the murderer’s net slowly and inexorably closes…

At the opening of the film, you may well be forgiven for thinking that this is going to be a film overly relying on slightly dodgy acting, ‘70s visual effects and magical powers. Well, you would be wrong. What Dario Argento succeeds in doing rather brilliantly is taking the makings of quite an ordinary thriller and cranks it up to a level of a bona fide bone-chilling horror film. Yes the psychic is real, but there the magic ends. We never have any doubt that the killer is a human being. It is simply a rather able human being – but human none the less. Which is quite befitting really, after all in this world, there are no monsters as scary as human beings. Argento uses and magnifies the tricks our minds play on us when we’re at home alone. You know the feeling, that creek, was that movement – that sound, did it come from the street…  For most of us it’s our minds playing tricks on us. For the heroes and heroines of Deep Red, this is not always the case. Let’s just say that I felt very glad indeed that I live in a house with three flatmates and two cats - I’m rarely alone enough to hear little creaks and squeaks around the house.

I also have to remark on the camerawork, the images created by Argento are always deeply striking in some way, Deep red is characterized by striking close-ups at key points that makes ones hair stand on end. The colours of the film are also striking, dark shadows mixing with glowing red blood…

But the thing I always seem to love about Argento’s films is the soundtrack. I mean, I still hum the signature tune from Suspiria when I am distracted – and I watched the film quite a few months ago – and this is no exception. Deep Red is no exception to this rule. Then again, that might be because they were both composed and performed by the same band, Goblin, an Italian progressive rock band known for their soundtrack work. This time around, Deep Red uses – brilliantly and quite effectively – the trick of using something normally innocent and everyday and transposing it into a horror setting to make it even more unsettling. This time around, it’s a children’s song (as you may or may not have been able to guess). The only thing I will say is that precious little is given in the way of explanations as to why this song is present in the film (because it is present in the actual film as well).

In fact, the only weakness of the film is that, when you settle your shivers and look at it closely, actual in depth explanations are exceedingly thin on the ground. However, the film does its job of creeping us out and scaring us so well that it can be forgiven – well, sort of - especially since it does such a good job of providing plot twists and surprises. Still, I don’t know,  another couple of minutes spent explaining properly WHY any of this happened may well have been all together a bad thing…  I do advise you don’t get too hung up on that though… You’ll miss out on an atmosphere well worth experiencing and being terrified in… 

A STORY OF SAVAGE GRACE CUT SHORT...

Regular readers of this blog will have noticed at some point that I do a lot of viewing on BBC Iplayer. I would strongly recommend it to the uninitiated; it is often brimming with interesting if rather under advertised propositions. I only clicked on Savage Grace because I thought I recognized Julianne Moore in the thumbnail and only then realized what a relevant film it was to this Oscar season as it co-stars this seasons other favorite, Eddie Redmayne. Savage Grace is a disturbing true story and a true acting masterclass by the two stars. And with controversial director Tom Kalin (of Swoon fame) at the helm, we would not be wrong to expect big things from this one. Which is why I was profoundly disappointed when it ended up not quite coming together in the end…

This is the story of the American actress and socialite Barbara Daly Bakeland (Julianne Moore) and her murder at the hands of her son Anthony ( Eddie Redmayne). Barbara is the epitome of the histrionic actress, driving her husband away relatively early in the marriage and being left to raise their son Anthony alone, with the help of various family friends and relatives. Barbara being obsessed with getting her old position with society back, Anthony is pretty much left to his own devices to experiment and find his own way in life. And his mother’s reaction to these experiments is, shall we say, not exactly conventional… Thus swimming through a strange, fluid atmosphere quite devoid of boundaries, the pair arrives at the ultimate tragedy that will end Barbara’s life.

The film has one heck of a lot of potential. But what looks like has happened is that Kalin has tried to take a formula that worked incredibly well for him in the early nineties with Swoon – namely a murder with sexual motivations laced with madness and a strange sort of folie a deux and re-adapt it. The problem is, while this works well for Swoon, it falls strangely flat for Savage Grace. The acting was superb and the direction very atmospheric if in places a little old fashioned but throughout, I felt as if there was something missing. The last half-hour or so came together a lot better, with Anthony finally making it quite clear that the – something is not quite right – feeling we had been harboring for a while now was bona fide insanity and having a magnificent breakdown on screen. In fact I finished the film wishing that there had been more of the last half hour and less of the first hour – if that makes sense as a sentence. Then I went online to see what I could find out about the story and promptly discovered what was missing. Basically it was a whole chunk of the real story

.

WARNING.THE NEXT PARAGRAPH IS BASICALLY SPOILER CITY. BUT THE MURDER IS IN THE Public DOMAIN SO… EHM. YEAH. Don’t get me wrong I am ALL for artistic license and – within reason – playing around with real life stories a tiny bit to suit a vision. And I also see that cinematically speaking what Kalin was trying to do was have a tense but understated first two thirds with subtle hints at the underlying incest with a dramatic reveal and “descent into madness” type finale. The problem for me was that the hinting was a little too subtle and didn’t quite get one on the same emotional level. In real life, it transpires, Anthony had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia years before the murder had occurred (in the film there is no mention of it) but his father wouldn’t allow him to be treated by psychiatrists. The incestuous relationship with his mother had also been going on for years (in the film this is hinted at but never elaborated – I got the impression the scene in the final half hour is the culmination, not one in many if you get what I mean). The incest had its roots in the fact that Barbara could never quite accept Anthony being gay and was “trying to fix him”. In this attempt he had also been coerced to have sex with prostitutes. Again, none of this had been mentioned. In fact Anthony and Barbara had had numerous violent quarrels involving knives and a previous attempted murder, all of which is overlooked in the film.

But then again, there is no great dramatic reveal in a young man with previous mental health issues tipping over the edge I suppose, so all of that is abandoned in lieu of a dramatic reveal at the end that leaves us gagging for more. Grand reveals are all very well and good in their place. But especially when it comes to mental illness the slow and steady descent into madness can be just as dramatic, not least because it usually corresponds more to the real experience people have of mental illness. And I mean it is not as if there weren’t plenty of dramatic events for this to lead off from – not least since the concept of “fixing” gay people is sadly still an actual topic today. Between that and the incest – the fact that technically his mother raped him – just sticking to the facts and doing much less in the way of editing and contributing would have made a completely sensational story. Especially with actors as brilliant as Moore and Redmayne.

 I would, in short, class Savage Grace as a missed opportunity more than anything else. It has some wonderfully dramatic glimmers but it never quite opens its wings and soars. Still it is well worth the watch if only for the wonderful performances and one of the most terrifying depictions of madness I have seen on screen for a while.

INTO THE MIND OF A KILLER: THE KILLING OF JOHN LENNON

It’s quite a popular gimmick for those a few generations back to ask “where were you when John Lennon died?” “Where were you when you first heard John Lennon died?” And a lot of people who were alive at the time actually remember too… John Lennon… Poet and philosopher to some, a good writer of songs to others, a man who understood marketing and fame very very well to yet others… For me? Possibly a combination of all three… The point is, his death shook the world. There is indeed great tragedy in loosing such a brilliant artist, however, the size of the tragedy sometimes makes us forget one of the most important people in the affair. Mark Chapman. The man who actually killed him…
This film is the story of Chapman. It tells his own story in his own authentic words and gives us a brilliantly clear if rather disturbing image into his mind and the reasons behind his actions – or rather the lack of them. Chapman is married and lives in Hawaii. He is unsettled, slightly “confused” (or so say his friends family and neighbors) but generally considered harmless. There is a lot people don’t know about him though. His love of the film Taxi Driver, his growing obsession with The Catcher in the Rye and its hero Holden Caufield and last of all the mission he feels God has given him through this book. He is the catcher in the rye as far as he’s concerned. And he is about to do his generation a “big service”.
This film is strange and fascinating. And it is by no means easy to watch. Its pace and its editing are as quick, fluid and off the wall is its subject matter, and this is possibly why I feel it does such a good job of portraying him. It is normal for anyone who loved Lennon to want to understand why such a thing had to be done. Chapman is the first to admit he doesn’t clearly know. It isn’t so much a concrete reason it’s more a state of mind, a state of confusion, a chain of thought that somehow ends in an action. You get to the end of the film with the feeling that even if you don’t consciously understand how Chapman’s mind works, you can kind of feel how it works… Not in a sense that you sympathize with him, oh no… It is very evident (despite the many psychiatric evaluations at the time claiming otherwise) just by listening to Chapman’s testimony that he is a very disturbed individual, there is nothing to “sympathize with” about what he did… But aren’t you a little bit curious, academically speaking, what the heck was going through his head as he prepared to pull the trigger? Watch this film and see… I don’t claim it’s easy to watch, never the less, you will not regret the time you spent on it…

“ “I SHOT MY WIFE… PROVE IT” / FRACTURE ”

OK, so this isn’t actually very err… “scientific” or “objective” but there are some actors I qualify as “lucky charms”. If they are in them, chances are I’ll watch it. And probably love it. Now, common sense dictates that even unqualified acting legends have their off-days, but I just don’t seem to see it. I’m thinking of Sir Anthony Hopkins. I love him. I don’t remember an Anthony Hopkins film I didn’t like. Especially if said film is a particularly juicy “whodunit”. Well, I call it a whodunit but that’s not really a fair assessment. Who dun it is quite obvious, the question to be asked is “howhashedunit”. Not very grammatical, but a fair question given the circumstances…
And “the circumstances” are as follows: Ted Crawford (Anthony Hopkins) is a rich and successful businessman. He has a luxurious Hollywood home and a beautiful wife he absolutely adores, that’s about all a man could ask for from life, no? Well, in this case, no. She is cheating on him, having an affair with a police detective no less. Now, Ted is literally heartbroken. And the only punishment that fits the crime, in Ted’s opinion, is capital punishment. He executes (hoho) this plan without delay, and shoots his wife at point blank range in the face (ouch). He was the only other person in the house, they have witnesses seeing them enter the house alone and who testify no one else entered or left the house… Ted even surprises everyone by signing a confession. For ambitious assistant D.A. Willy Beachum (and for everyone else concerned – Ryan Gosling by the way) it looks like an open and shut case. All the better for Willy – he needs to tie this last case up before he goes off to work at a swanky law firm for a fat paycheck. So imagine Willy’s surprise when Ted Crawford suddenly changes his plea to “not guilty” and all the evidence (including the signed confession) starts to vanish (in the legal sense) before his very eyes… If Willy doesn’t want Mr. Crawford to get away with murder – thus forcing him to wave goodbye to the most lucrative job opportunity he’ll ever face, never mind the humiliation of it all – he has to use ALL his shark powers…
OK, so you don’t exactly win 9 Primetime Emmys without knowing how to keep your audience glued to their seats, as director Gregory Hoblit demonstrates. Of course he is the director of the Oscar nominated film Primal Fear – so it’s not entirely unexpected. The film is very VERY intelligently constructed. So much so that the “crux” of the whole thing is mind-numbingly simple in the end to the point that I almost yelled “God, I should have thought of that!” It’s not too too courtroomy either so even those of us who don’t watch this genre will be able to follow it without getting bored or losing track. Plus of course there’s a love interest for Ryan Gosling in the shape of a very cool female shark played by Rosamund Pike, but I’ll let you discover that thread in the plot as you go along… The acting is… Well, the way you would expect with that caliber of actor. Anthony Hopkins makes an absolutely marvelous villain don’t you think? A great film to get your blood pumping and keep you happily occupied of an evening…