Being a big David Cronenberg fan, “The Shrouds” was probably my most anticipated film at this year's MIFF, but in saying that, I was also very weary of it because for some reason I just did not have the confidence in it, like I did his previous film “Crimes of the Future” (which I also saw at MIFF a couple of years ago). Sadly, my feelings were prophetic as I found “The Shrouds” to be an incredibly disappointing effort from this usually great director. The film ultimately suffers from having too many ingredients, where none of these ingredients get their individual flavours to shine and thus the entire thing feels severely under-cooked. What makes David Cronenberg such a great filmmaker is that he normally comes up with brilliant ideas, and then builds believable worlds where these ideas can exist in, so he can examine them in depth and with originality. While it is true that a lot of these ideas can seem weird or bizarre, the way he develops them always feels realistic (within the confines of the world of the film) and intelligent, with him often focusing on the collision between the flesh of the human body, and that of modern technology. Unfortunately, outside of having some great surface ideas, “The Shrouds” has none of the complexities usually seen in a Cronenberg film, where everything feels explored only on the most basic, surface level.
One of the main problems with “The Shrouds” is that I believe that it has been poorly cast. Vincent Cassel, who plays Karsh, is a fantastic actor when he speaks in his native French tongue, but I always feel he is no where near as strong when performing in English like he is here. While I may be wrong, I believe he was probably cast in this role because of how much he looks like David Cronenberg himself here. “The Shrouds” is a deeply autobiographical project for the director as it's a response to the recent passing of his own wife, and to find an actor that looks so much like himself for the role of Karsh was probably too hard to pass up, but for this viewer it gave the film an added creepiness to it (not in a good way), particularly with where the story ends up heading. The very first shot of Cassel in the film, I was taken aback by the fact that he looked a dead ringer for Cronenberg. I then found Cassel to be way too calm and one note as Karsh, who never really looks even the slightest bit worried, let alone paranoid, when his graveyard is desecrated and him then being locked out of his company's entire computer network. Diane Kruger is incredibly flat in all three of her roles, playing both Becca, Karsh's dead wife, and her sister Terry, who is very much alive, while providing the voice of Hunny, Karsh's AI digital personal assistant. Ironically, Kruger seems to come alive the most when performing as Hunny, but comes across as the most boring sister-in-law on the planet when playing Terry. The scenes when she is playing Becca are dream sequences so are done in a non-realistic and surreal manner, making her performance come across as a little odd, but this is not her fault. The other main actor, Guy Pearce, is totally unconvincing as a nervous, paranoid tech-wiz, Maury, who also happens to be the ex-husband of Terry. Outside of this film, I consider all three of these actors to be extremely talented, but they just do not work well together in “The Shrouds”.
I mentioned above just how personal of a project “The Shrouds” is for David Cronenberg, with him writing it soon after his own wife's death. It appears that the film is his way of finding an outlet to grieve or to come to turns with his loss through his art, but in making this so obvious to the audience, it then becomes a little disturbing or sad even that Karsh ultimately realises that he is searching for nothing more than who the next woman he is going to have sex with. To be honest, I was surprised by just how focused the film was on sexual matters (although I really shouldn't have been with how familiar I am with Cronenberg's previous work), as I was expecting a more sombre or melancholic mood to be attached to “The Shrouds”. Maybe Cronenberg, as writer here, is just having some fun, but if he does have a sister-in-law like his character Karsh does in “The Shrouds”, then I think he exposed to the world just how he feels about her too.
The most exciting thing about a Cronenberg film though are his ideas, and I mentioned already that this film does have some interesting ones. The main idea (and inspiration for the title of the film) of having dead bodies wrapped in special shrouds which give the family access to watch the decomposition of their loved one's body on a screen situated on their gravestone (via an app on their phone) is an incredibly weird one, but fascinating none-the-less. Personally, I couldn't think of anyone who would be interested in seeing such a thing in real life, but it makes sense in the realms of the film. However this is never explored in any real meaningful way, and seems to only exist as a plot function for the conspiracy angle of the film going forward. Before I talk about that element, I must say what was interesting was when Karsh talked about all the bureaucracy involved with the burial business having to constantly butt heads with economic, social, religious and technological constraints, but again, this is only mentioned briefly rather than being explored in any real fashion. Now when it comes to the whole conspiracy / paranoia part of the plot, I felt it went absolutely nowhere due to it coming across as too far fetched right from the outset. It fails to be interesting or believable because it is so complex, while being so basic at the same time (how's that for a contradiction of terms). To me it sounded more like the mutterings of an insane conspiracy theorist rather than a detailed plot that could actually exist due to a real conspiracy taking place. There is also no increased tension associated with the conspiracy, even when the stakes are supposedly getting higher and more dangerous for Karsh, it never truly feels like he is in any real danger. Revelations of possible medical trials, Chinese spying, the weaponisation of the shrouds themselves in terms of surveillance, and the involvement of the Russian mafia are randomly thrown into the mix (in an attempt to give the film more meat on its bones, I suspect), and then go nowhere. There is one plot thread that is followed through to the end, and may be the explanation to everything that has come before it, but even that is introduced so late into the film, that it too feels half-baked. Speaking of the ending, “The Shrouds” ends so suddenly and on the most baffling note, which saw a large majority of the audience I saw the film with (which was a sold out session) burst out laughing when they realised that that was indeed the end of the film. You could feel a collective dissatisfaction throughout the cinema, along with an audible groan, with most people thinking “WTF?!? Is that it???”.
The other aspect of “The Shrouds” that I was really disappointed in was that it gave little chance for Howard Shore's music to soar. What I love about Shore's work is that he is very original and never seems to just do variations on music he has made before for other films. I absolutely loved his odd and very out there score for “Crimes of the Future”, and when the opening credits of “The Shrouds” began, accompanied by Shore's latest music, I was suitably impressed. However after that opening stanza, the music rarely gets another chance to shine for the rest of the film due to how flat and lifeless “The Shrouds” is. Do not get me wrong though, Howard Shore does his best with what little he is given by Cronenberg, but unfortunately not even his music can save “The Shrouds” from the disappointment it turned out to be.
Overall, if it isn't totally clear by now, I felt that David Cronenberg's latest film “The Shrouds” was a massive disappointment, and possibly the worst film of his distinguished career. The quality of the story just does not live up to the usual Cronenberg standards, even though I will admit there are a number of good ideas within the film, none of these are explored in any satisfying manner throughout. It truly felt like a first draft of a script that wasn't yet ready to go into production, and because the film feels so unfocused, you really notice the running time of “The Shrouds” which feels much longer than it actually is. You could probably forgive some of this if Cronenberg was able to stick his landing, but once again, the ending is terrible. While I will forever be a David Cronenberg fan, and will always see whatever he makes in the future, I am sad to say that “The Shrouds” was a massive mis-step from this usually brilliant director.
2 Stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment