THE CHILL OF THE NIGHT : THE HOUR IS "NEAR DARK"

Kathryn Bigelow is a director that has begun to draw my attention more and more in the last couple of years. Her films, I have discovered are not as “one layered” as they may look to the untrained eye. I mean, she is far from being my favorite director ever, and yes, her films may well contain rather nationalistic messages on one level (I’m thinking of the Hurt Locker specifically) but her films also have depth. Which makes them actually fascinating to watch. What I have in mind for this week is her first solo feature film, made in 1987. And actually it’s quite in keeping with modern times. It’s all about vampires. Living in a small town in rural America, Caleb is a bona fide modern cowboy. He lives on the ranch with his father and his little sister and lives a pretty ordinary life until, one fateful night, he runs into Mae. And a little bit of passion leads for a lot more than Caleb has bargained for. Mae is one of a band of vampires who roam the land in stolen cars and pretty much do whatever the heck they want. Now Caleb is not too unhappy about the turn of events, he loves Mae and would, in theory quite like to spend eternity with her if it weren’t for the minor issue of having to kill people to survive. That and the whole pillaging, stealing, low moral standards bit. The “gang” is quite aware that Caleb is not one of them on so many levels and this brings his already shaky existence into even more peril. Will young love find a way out? Can Caleb carve out a place for himself among the night folk? We seem to be all about crossing different genres with Westerns today. Because in her backstage interview (yes I’m the kind of nerd who watches the extras) Bigelow openly says that her aim was to cross a Western with a horror movie. And Near Dark functions exactly in this way. I do not really mind the crossed with a western bit to be honest. Heck, it is pretty much the granddaddy of True Blood in that sense. Caleb (played by Adrian Pasdar- who I've just realised is Nathan Petrelli from Heroes. For those who watch the series) is a good, old fashioned good guy, complete with square jaw. Mae is a lovely contrast to him, thin, waif-like and pale. I have to say, there are a few tropes that have kind of got old – the child-vampire / adult stuck in a child’s body for example (I find the fascination with this trope rather odd actually. It possibly has something to do with the fact that it’s usually the reverse, a child in an adult’s body connoting immaturity but anyhow, moving on…). All in all Bigelow does something clever with the vampires, namely, she sticks to all the major rules but rewrites other stuff. I mean the end of the film is brilliant really, on the one hand it’s a rather fairy tale “solution” to the problems brought up throughout the film but on the other hand the very last scene / frame even if you look closely is a bit of critique of the solution offered. I don’t know, it’s worth watching carefully. The motley crew of vampires is made up largely of the cast of Alien (Lance Henriksen, Bil Paxton, Jeanette Goldstein for example) which, the backstage footage also confirms, gives the whole thing very much a family feel. But that is, you see, precisely as it should be. In fact the “family” feeling in the film is so well portrayed that you can’t help secretly and ever so slightly sympathizing with the “baddies”. I mean, they work so well together. Oh you know what I mean. Yes you do. I mean, we know we’re not supposed to but at the end of the day quite a few of us sympathize with the baddies deep down inside. And this is a group of baddies that is particularly easy to sympathize with. Interesting film all in all. Don’t be taken in by the ‘80s feel, give it a whirl.

A WORD TO BRING FEAR INTO ALL YOUR HEARTS: "NOSFERATU"

Ok, update on the personal front. I have started working even further back into film history. Having got my hands on some truly historic (from a cinematic point of view) works, I have been watching them eagerly and with fascination. Now, by historic I mean the firsts in cinema. And old. As in 1920’s silent films that constituted the various firsts of their kind. Now, these, I must warn you, are not the kind of films you would watch for ordinary cinematic entertainment – don’t expect to be swept up in the storyline or anything. Our generation, whose expectations from a film have become very much the same as those we have of a theme park, will be sorely disappointed by Nosferatu. You may even find F.W. Murnau’s film dating from 1922 comical. In which case, I strongly recommend you go watch a Mr. Bean film or an American Pie film (in my very humble opinion one of the silliest franchises invented by the way, but there you go), it will serve the same purpose and you won’t be being disrespectful. If, however, you are curious as to how we got to Avatar… If, for example you are a fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer – or indeed any sort of horror film and are curious to see their great great grandfather… I strongly recommend you watch Nosferatu, which is a true work of art and piece of history, as it is the first horror film ever to be made…
The story is easily told, it is adapted from Braham Stoker’s Dracula. In the small town of Wisburg, lives Thomas Hutter and his beloved wife Ellen. One day, a letter arrives from Transylvania. Count Orlok has decided to buy a house in their small village and Mr. Knock the real-estate agent wants Hutter to go to his castle and get the count to sign the papers… Hutter, eager at the prospect of a windfall money-wise, sets off at once. But the small village close to Orlok’s castle is dark and trembling with fear and the castle is dark and foreboding… I wonder what adventures await Hutter within?
Now, needless to say, from many points of view, the film is very, VERY primitive… Number one, this is a silent, black and white film, so the acting is accordingly over-done in a way nothing our modern experiences have prepared us for. The characters and the storyline are simplistic (and sometimes hard to follow because of the deterioration in the quality of film!) and they openly show the prejudices of the day. For example, a book Thomas Hutter finds in the inn near the castle and takes with him, the “book of vampires”, states that “beasts sometime feel dangers men do not”. This is coupled by scenes of skittish looking animals, horses etc Hutter sees from his window but later,by his wife back in Wisburg hallucinating and feeling Hutter is in danger… Please remember that these were the days (or just after them anyway) when women were considered only a little better than animals in some quarters and very openly “inferior” to men… At the most optimistic, this can be interpreted as women being “emotional as opposed to intellectual, thus more open to feelings than thoughts” but still… As a woman, I didn’t find it pleasant. In the day though, it appears to have been considered normal…
Then, there is the technical side of it. First of all, camera movements had not been invented yet. The camera neither tracks, nor pans, nor rolls. It stands. We cut from one scene to the next. Closeups were also not invented yet. The closest we get to the actors is from the shoulders up, with the slight exception where Hutter discovers a bite on his neck (and assumes it’s mosquitoes – although the film had deteriorated so much I only figured this out later as he wrote a letter to his wife) and even that is not very close. Framing? Yes well, there is a bit of that but the angles and composition are so odd… One example – I couldn’t help giggling – was when Nosferatu (a vampire as you probably gathered) rises from his coffin. He is tall and imposing and… Half his head doesn’t fit into the frame… Yep, the frame cuts half his head off, something that would NEVER pass today but it possibly made the vampire seem more gigantic and scary in the 20’s… Not to mention shots seemingly from miles away with the character running from one weird point to another of the screen. What else? Well, you will have heard of filming a subject from a lower point to make it look imposing but there are bits this is taken to a fault (the camera, for all intents and purposes seems to be filming from the bottom of a well). The editing is positively sluggish in places with tons of footage we would consider completely superfluous today. ..
However, it is also a fascinating film. It is the starting point, what films started off as. Just watch the film and try and spot what is different from films today on a technical level and you will have greatly advanced your technical knowledge of films and editing. It puts everything into perspective. And, despite all of this, Max Shreck’s performance of Nosferatu is terrifying (for all that was lacking they knew a thing or two about costumes and make-up back then, he looks “positively evil !” as Mom put it) and for all their naïveté while in character Gustave von Wangenheim and Greta Schröder (Thomas Hutter and Ellen) along with the direction of Herr Murnau seem to be doing something right because you can’t help but get excited as you watch the film (not scared though). All you need is a little imagination, don’t expect to be spoon-fed the way we are today; back in those days people read a good deal more and could use their imaginations to get “into” movies with a good deal less then what we’re used to… Just as long as you read books as a kid, you should be ok…

FIND OUT HOW ALL THE FUSS BEGAN : "INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE"

Now, I don’t know what your stance on this matter is, but I am personally glad the whole “Edward” craze is finally subsiding. I don’t particularly dig vampires, and although Robert Pattinson is an admirable young man I don’t find him drop dead gorgeous. Well, when I say I don’t dig vampires, that isn’t strictly true – I just don’t dig those particular vampires. And before you say anything, nor am I a fan of Buffy the Vampire slayer or Angel – I don’t dig those vampires either. But there are a group of vampires that were particularly cool. Old school stuff, with real classic actors playing them. You surely remember Interview with a Vampire? Now, Old Moon, New Moon; Second Hand Moon - not my thing. Anne Rice? Interview with a Vampire Trilogy? (Yep, THREE books, Interview with a Vampire, The Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned) NOW you’re talking. The classic movie I want to talk about today (I assume you have at least heard of it!) is based on the first book. Rather a good adaptation I may add. There was also an adaptation of the third book, Queen of the Damned a TOTAL disaster as far as being faithful to the story is concerned… (just possibly because they skipped the second book and moved to the third because there was a sexy lady (the afore mentioned Queen of the Damned played by the late Aaliyah) in the story and they thought it would be a better crowd pleaser). Now, my view, stay away from that one, but watch Interview With A Vampire. Then read the book – there are a lot of details in the book that are overlooked in the film – an understandable situation, the book is a tad long – but I say do both. It is a classic in its own genre and I would hate you all to think Edward and Bella are the best modern fiction has to offer as far as vampires are concerned…
Louis de Pointe Du Lac (Brad Pitt by the way) was 24 in 1791. He is the owner of a large plantation but having lost both his beloved wife and newborn baby in childbirth he has lost the will to live. One night, as he is sharing this predicament with a chance drinking companion, he is faced with a bizarre choice. His companion – Lestat De Lioncourt (Tom Cruise just incidentally) is a vampire. A vampire who has not had his dinner yet and would be only too glad to kill him and put him out of his misery. However, Lestat has taken a liking to Louis; therefore he will give him a choice, for Lestat can turn Louis into a vampire. A new life as a creature of the night leaving all mortal toil behind him is tempting to Louis and he accepts. The new life is good. It is complicated, as Louis finds it almost impossible to kill people even though that means being almost starved or living off rats but it is good. Heightened senses, immortality and Claudia (a pint sized Kirsten Dunst), a little girl Lestat “turns” for Louis to assuage his loneliness… Louis and his new family are happy; the sky seems to be the limit… Unfortunately, Louis is about to discover that there are other things that don’t have limits: the darkness in Lestat’s heart and his greed…
Now, this is indeed a vampire film. It is not, however, merely a silly time filler either. Authorities back in the 90’s took this film so seriously they nominated it for not one but two Oscars ® and although the big names in the movie are admirable it wasn’t for the acting but for the score (music) and art direction. So this, my children is a “bona fide” film no moony nonsense here; new or otherwise, (sorry Mom – and any other fans - I know you love the series but they just GET ON MY NERVES!!). And the whole story itself is wonderfully constructed. It’s like a good romantic novel, will just sweep you off your feet, back to the 18th century, you will live with vampires for 200 years then be back in time to get the supper ready and the dishes washed. The acting is good, as you might well expect and the film is seriously good quality. Oh and by the way, the director of the movie is Neil Jordan, Oscar ® winning director of “The Crying Game”… We are, as you can imagine, in the domain of good quality entertainment. Your life won’t be changed by this, but then again I assume you don’t expect your life to be changed by a movie about vampires. I recommend this film to all vampire lovers despite my scathing words about the series. Think of it this way, if you like this genre so much, you might as well know a bit more about its “history” and classic examples. And who knows, after you watch it, maybe you’ll see what I mean even if you don’t agree.

LET THE RIGHT ONE IN

Ever since “Twighlight” descended upon us, vampires have been a “buzz word” for a lot of us. I personally do not get it. Close family member however *cough cough cough* are absolutely dotty about the whole affair. Therefore I felt the need to warn you all, ok this is a vampire film and a love film but don’t leap on it screaming “EDWARD!”. No. No, no no. NOTHING to do with it. Just bare that in mind as you ponder whether you want to buy it and read on.
Ok so I guess this film has been hyped about wherever you live as well but maybe you missed the hype or avoided it so here’s our plot. Our story is set in a small town in Sweden. Oskar is 12. He is that scrawny kid at the back of class that doesn’t participate much in class and who the bigger kids pick on – you know the type. He doesn’t have many friends but then he makes one – Eli who has just moved into the neighborhood. Eli is a lovely girl; about his age and fun to play with but… She’s weird… She only comes out to play after dark. She doesn’t enter a house unless she is invited. Oskar never sees her eating anything. Oskar doesn’t mind that at first. Eli’s strong, she gives him advice and courage, and he starts standing up to the bullies at school thanks to her. As their bond grows stronger and stronger Oskar becomes more and more determined to find out Eli’s secret. His determination will have consequences that are unexpected to say the very least.
Now, this film is NOT your typical vampire film. It’s VERY Scandinavian in a lot of ways from the setting and décor to the acting (and that in itself is a “either love it or hate it” situation). The protagonists of the story are around 12. And although it does actually happen, older audiences may find a film where 12 year olds fall in love a little hard to stomach. But then again, this is an absolutely MAGICAL film about growing, about love, about change, about strength… About how true love really changes one, about how some things, some emotions are truly ageless and timeless… Despite the hype about it I feel that this a film you have to get passed a few prejudices to truly enjoy, but when you do get passed them you truly WILL enjoy it. It may even change you…

FRANCE MEETS SOUTH KOREA : "THIRST"

The more observant among you, my readers (we precious few – we band of brothers!) may have noticed I am rather fond of Park Chan Wook. I seem to have pretty much eulogized about him in my previous article about him – see “I’m a Cyborg But It’s Ok”. I am about to do it again. Behold Thirst. A film by Park Chan Wook. And in fact, a rather intelligent adaption of the classic Emile Zola novel Therese Raquin. Confused ? I certainly was. But absolutely titillated by the idea of the combo of one of my favorite classical authors(YES I know, I’m square. Live with it.)and one of my favourite directors? You betcha. I finally got to watch this film the other day. And boy did I get everything I expected and more…
Now, to fully appreciate the film – and the intelligence of the adaptation by Park Chan Wook himself and Seo Gyeong Jong – I should give a brief summary of Therese Raquin. So I shall. Basically, this is the story of Therese, who through circumstances, is forcibly married to Camille, the spoiled and effeminate son of a patron and neighbor. She then falls in love with Laurent, a vagabond who stays with her more because he can no longer afford prostitutes than anything else. They proceed to murder Camille to be together; however, murder is not as “easy to forget” as the couple first imagine… It is basically a naturalist novel which seeks to prove Zola’s ideas on the human condition and this is a very short summary of it indeed – I strongly recommend you read the book as well!
Now, onto the film. As you can imagine, it is set in South Korea and all the characters are Korean. Now, the Therese in this story is Tae Ju who is an orphan who was brought up by Mrs. Ra and forced to marry her spoiled son Kang Woo. Tae Ju is very unhappy in her marriage indeed. Laurent however, is Sang-hyeon and he is a childhood friend of the family and – wait for it – a catholic priest working in a hospital. Not a very appropriate euphemism for a playboy? No wait, there is more. He is a priest, who through a blood transfusion that has seemingly gone rather wrong has become a vampire. The only way he can survive is through consuming human blood, which makes life complicated if you believe in “Thou shalt not kill.” The couple will proceed to “inter-infect” each other with their own personal brands of good and evil. Through Tae Ju, Sang-hyeon discovers lust and love for the first time in his life. Tae Ju who is left unsatisfied by her husband clings to him. She is entranced by the idea of leaving Kang Woo and being with him. Especially if this means living (and being young) forever – thus Kang Woo’s days become numbered. All that being said, Sang-hyeon is still very much a priest in his own soul and even though love and lust may lead him to do unexpected things, well, let us say he will stay true to himself in the end…
Honestly, you don’t need to read Zola to enjoy this film – but those of you who have will do so more, I enjoyed the many parallelisms. And please don’t think “blasphemy” right away – this is a very tasteful and respectful, all be it modern and slightly well, different adaption. But that is not to say Park Chan Wook has not added something “personal” to the mix. The film is touching, observant, intelligent and sometimes quite hysterically funny in the way only Asian cinema can be. And Park Chan Wook’s great success is that he can give this whole range of emotions without disrupting the general feeling of the film, a film that becomes rather somber and at one point slightly surreal towards the end of its 2 full hours. It is one of those films that will most probably give you a migraine if you are prone to them or just make you grumpy for the rest of the day. But you will not regret watching it. That, I promise you.