DREAM

Back at the start of the last decade, when my fascination with South Korean cinema first began, one of the directors I immediately gravitated towards was Kim Ki-Duk.  In those days, he was making quite brutal and violent dramas (such as “Bad Guy”) and the darkness within his films is what drew me to him.  However he continued to evolve as an artist and soon he started showing a softer and more poetic side to his work and began creating masterpieces like “Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter…..And Spring” and “3-Iron”.  International critics and audiences suddenly stood up and took notice of Kim Ki-Duk’s work like never before and he soon became a festival darling.  One of Ki-Duk’s strengths was his speed in making films, without suffering any loss of quality, where between the years of 1996 – 2008 he completed fifteen features.  However after 2008’s “Dream”, he took a sabbatical of three years between features, after creatively burning himself out.  Somewhere along the line, I too must have become burnt out because I never got around to watching “Dream” when it was first released.  Similar to what happened with my addiction to Shinya Tsukamoto films, I found myself ignoring (although not deliberately) films from a director I used to rush out and see whenever he had a new one out.  This week, Kim Ki-Duk’s return to narrative filmmaking “Pieta” premiered at the Venice Film Festival and after reading a review of that film, I was inspired to finally check out his 2008 feature “Dream”.

“Dream” tells the rather strange tale about two unconnected people who are tied together via dreams.  Jin, a Japanese man, awakens after having a very vivid dream about a hit and run car accident he has caused whilst following his ex-girlfriend home.  He feels an odd strangeness about the dream, mainly because it felt so real and he knew the area where the dream took place.  Jin hops in his car and drives to the location where his dream occurred only to be shocked to find that everything he had dreamed had come true, however there was no possible way he could have been driving the car.  After examining some traffic cameras, the police identify their suspect in the case, Ran, a Korean woman who has no memory of the incident even though her car bares all of the markings of having been involved in an accident.  For some reason Jin is sure that Ran is innocent and that he is to blame for the accident, and after questioning Ran some more he realizes that Ran is a sleepwalker and that more recent incidents of her walking mirror dreams that he has had.  After visiting Ran’s sleep therapist, she works out that the two of them are like one, but at different ends of the spectrum.  Jin has just been dumped by his girlfriend he loves, while Ran had just dumped a boyfriend she despises.  What the therapist works out is that when Jin dreams of his girlfriend, Ran sleepwalks and acts out Jin’s dream but in regards to her ex-boyfriend.  For example if Jin dreams of confronting his ex’s new boyfriend, she in turn will confront her ex’s new girlfriend.  As the therapist explains, they are one, she is his yin to her yang and this will continue until they can co-exist by falling in love.  Seeing as the two are strangers this is unlikely to happen so the two must continue to live but never to sleep at the same time or suffer the consequences that may occur.

I must admit that as soon as the film began, I realized just how much I had missed Kim Ki-Duk and his work, but while there is a lot to like about “Dream”, it is a terribly uneven film.  There is not a consistent tone throughout the piece and it suffers because of it.  It starts off well enough with the opening dream sequence and when we first meet our characters.  It sets up the necessary drama well and atmospherically but when it comes to the scenes of the couple trying to stay awake, the film becomes a little farcical and comedic (something very strange for a Kim Ki-Duk film) and it causes a jarring effect.  Also the way Jin goes about trying to keep himself awake by cutting or stabbing himself often seem to be added just for shock value.

The strangest thing about “Dream” is not the dreams themselves but the fact that the two main characters, Jin and Ran, speak completely different languages throughout the film and it is never once mentioned.  Jin speaks Japanese, whilst Ran, Korean.  It is very strange but I cannot believe that a director like Kim Ki-Duk could just be accommodating his Japanese lead, Jo Odagiri, rather I am sure that he is making some kind of point here.  The exact nature of this point I am unsure of but I am assuming that it either has to do with the fact that in dreams, language is no barrier, or he is making a statement, that he believes that people never really listen and understand anyone else in today’s society.  It is a very odd thing to hear but strangely it never destroyed my enjoyment of the film at all.  Performance wise, Odagiri does an admirable effort, but I think there were times when he played Jin too soft and he needed to have more of an edge in parts, to have more gravity in a scene.  He does have a nice scene after Ran asks Jin to stop dreaming of his girlfriend, and he tries to explain that he likes dreaming of her and he is not ready to give that up.  I think Odagiri got this scene exactly right.  Lee Na-Yeong’s portrayal of Ran is so cold and emotionless, that I found it incredibly hard to warm up to her character.  She is incredibly selfish and never wants to put herself out to help with the situation and yet wants Jin to give up everything, she is such a pain.  Towards the end of the film, Jin comes to visit Ran.  He is a bloody mess after trying to keep himself awake for her, but his pain barely registers with Ran who gazes at him blankly.

The look of the film was, typically for Kim Ki-Duk, just gorgeous.  Kim Gi-Tae’s images during the normal dramatic scenes are superb, however the look and design the two men went for during the dream sequences were a bit of a miscalculation.  There is nothing dream-like at all about these scenes; instead they come across as very cheap looking.  The style used is similar to the frame-stepping look that Wong Kar Wai used in his blurred images in “Chungking Express” and “Ashes Of Time”, although not quite as dramatic as those films, the technique just does not work well at all here.  Part of the fun of films involving dreamscapes is the dreams themselves, but in “Dream” they were the least successful part of the film.  Instead here we really want Jin to wake up so we can see exactly what Ran has done in reality.  Being a Kim Ki-Duk film, you know that the story is going to take a turn towards the dark side of human nature, and it does as Jin starts to have more and more disturbing dreams about his ex.  My problem with this is that it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense because this is a man who still loves this girl so to dream of hurting her does not ring true, rather it seems more of a plot convenience, a way to forward the story.

Most of Kim Ki-Duk’s films seem to have at least one iconic moment in them, and there is a truly sublime scene in “Dream” when all four characters (Jin, Ran and their exes) come together in a field and have a criss-crossing argument with identities constantly changing throughout the scene.  I am not sure if this is some sort of shared dream between Jin and Ran, or if it is just a visual way to describe the back story of each character as they are telling it to the other, but whatever it is, it is the standout moment of the film.  It is stunningly photographed, beautifully acted and immaculately directed and “Dream” is worth seeing if just for this scene.

The ending of “Dream” is quite odd and seems to exist on some sort of metaphysical level, but it also seems to come out of nowhere.  While images of butterflies are constant throughout “Dream” and very near the end, Ran begins her bizarre twitching; I must say that I was not ready at all for what happens at the end of this film.  Apparently the basis to the ending has to do with a Chinese philosopher who dreamt he was a butterfly, but upon awakening from the dream he questioned whether he was really a butterfly dreaming he was a man instead.  Make no mistake, the ending is very beautiful but again, I do not think it is believable because it doesn’t really work within what has come before it story-wise (I find it very hard to believe in the love story at all).

Overall, while I liked a lot of Kim Ki-Duk’s fifteenth film “Dream” (I loved watching Jin making or carving those stamps), in the end I would probably call the film an interesting failure.  He came up with a very unique idea or concept, but unfortunately he didn’t take it anywhere really interesting.  That said, a mediocre film from Ki-Duk is probably better than most director’s good films.  I cannot believe that it had been five years since I had watched a Ki-Duk film, but even with its flaws, watching “Dream” has once again made me realize just how good a director he is and how much I have missed his work.  The fire has been re-lit inside me once again and I am now greatly looking forward to his latest film, “Pieta”.

3.5 Stars.

COMPLIANCE

It is a regular Friday afternoon at fast food joint “ChickWich”, as the workers prepare for a busy night.  Assistant store manager Sandra rounds up her team to go through the do’s and don’ts of the night as she has caught wind that a franchise supervisor may be visiting the stores tonight.  It is explained to all the staff that all orders must be carried out to the nth degree because of this, which not only means ingredients but the order that they are applied.  This is made all the harder due to a freezer malfunction the night before that has left the store with no pickles for their sandwiches and a very limited supply of bacon.  In fact, $1,500 worth of stock was lost due to the freezer fiasco, which understandably has put a lot of unnecessary stress on poor Sandra.  Other than these problems, it appears that it is going to be another normal Friday night, busy as all heck but a good one for the business.  However things change dramatically when Sandra receives a phone call from a police officer named Officer Daniels explaining to the manager that he has a woman claiming that one of the “ChickWich” staff had stolen money from her purse.  The description of the employee in question matches that exactly of young Becky who works at the front of the store serving the customers.  Sandra is stunned by the accusation that Becky is a thief because she has never had a problem with the girl at all, but Officer Daniels continues to explain that he also has eyewitness accounts and video surveillance footage to corroborate the accusation.  He requests that Sandra remove Becky from her station and to place her in a storeroom where they can talk to her about the event.  Sandra complies with his request but when Becky denies any wrongdoing, the officer on the end of the phone informs Sandra that due to him being unable to make it to the store for awhile, it is up to her to strip search Becky in an attempt to find the stolen money.  Sandra is incredibly uneasy about this, as is Becky for understandable reasons, but when Officer Daniels explains that he will take full responsibility for the action; Sandra agrees to do what he says.  No money is found on the now naked girl, and the fast food workers think that this horrible ordeal would come to an end, but sadly this is just the beginning as for the next three hours, Becky is humiliated, sexually abused and coerced into performing a sexual act on a man she barely knows, all at the request of a police officer at the other end of the phone line.

The very first image of “Compliance” is one with the words “Inspired by true events” in big bold letters taking up the whole of the screen.  As amazing as it sounds, this is very much a true story and it is really scary at just how close to the real case the events depicted in “Compliance” really are.  It is because of these events that make “Compliance” a really hard film to watch.  At times it feels so exploitative and you may question director Craig Zobel’s motivations for showing us the degradation of a young girl in such minute detail.  However it is this detail that also makes “Compliance” such an important film.  After watching the film, I did some research on the actual case that inspired “Compliance” and all of the details of the young girl’s abuse are totally spot on.  The fact that Zobel chose to show exactly what happened to this girl is an incredibly brave decision, not least because at times it feels totally made up and it makes it hard to believe that this is exactly what happened.  In my own experience I was totally caught up in the suspense of the entire proceedings until Sandra’s fiancé, Evan, enters the picture and I thought that no one in their right mind would have done the stuff that is done here to another human being at the request of an unseen person.  It made no sense and took me out of the film and felt like Zobel was going for a cheap thrill.  However I was shocked and disgusted to learn that especially these details are accurate.  For the record these incidents include Evan spanking Becky on her naked bottom after disobeying orders from him, forcing Becky to do jumping jacks whilst naked, and the worst, forcing her to perform fellatio on him.  You have to remember that all of these things are “requests” from the police officer on the end of the line, but it is really hard to believe that no one actually questioned thoroughly what they were told to do to Becky.

In regards to “Compliance” being exploitative, well I had to reassess my opinion on this as well, because it is actually the degrading things that happen to Becky and the whole situation that are of an exploitative nature, and it is a compliment to Zobel’s handling of the material that makes us feel them so fully, but the film itself is anything but exploitation.  Zobel never lingers on Becky’s naked flesh or shoots these scenes in any kind of degrading way.  He is actually very respectful of the story (and his actress) and prefers to tell and show the horror of it all, rather than make it titillating in any form whatsoever.  This is why I believe in the importance of showing the entire truth of what happened to Becky during her ordeal, so it isn’t lost just how bad it was for all involved.

“Compliance” is an actor’s movie and everyone gives splendid and very realistic performances.  For my money, the strongest performance comes from Ann Dowd who plays the confused and unsure manager, Sandra.  She is simply magnificent and understands the nuances of her character perfectly.  Sandra does not want to do what she is told to do and forever feels for her employee Becky, but is too intimidated by the perceived authority on the phone to actually question it properly.  She is also easily tricked by Officer Daniels when he uses real names that she is familiar with, but her biggest flaw is when the officer compliments her on how well she is doing.  You can see she feels a sense of pride and whenever she is wavering on doing something, Daniels always brings her back with a compliment.  Ann Dowd’s greatest scene is when she is told to strip search Becky, with fear and shock so evident in her eyes and yet she just wants to do the right thing.  She silently cries while being told what she must do, and it is just an amazing scene.  There is no doubt that Sandra is also a victim in this horrendous crime.  Dreama Walker plays the unlucky Becky and does a fantastic job of showing us just how horrible and demeaning a crime this was.  Her initial shock when she is accused of theft is soon replaced by fear which in turn is replaced by an almost understanding of how bad it is going to get.  Towards the end of the film Walker plays Becky almost vacant, as if she has left her body while so much bad is happening to it.  The other performer I want to mention is Pat Healey who plays the antagonist, Officer Daniels.  The only thing I am familiar with Healey being in is his comedic turn in Ti West’s “The Innkeepers”, and this is an incredibly different role.  It is quite shocking seeing just how normal a person Healey portrays Daniels’ as, as we witness him making himself sandwiches and doing normal household chores while destroying people’s lives on the phone at the same time.  It is also incredibly scary at just how little he cares about the impact he is having on these lives, and worse how much enjoyment he is getting out of it.  As normal as Healey portrays him, Daniels also has the ability to be incredibly creepy and very aggressive when it is called for as we see mostly when he is talking to Becky, and Evan too.  Again, I cannot praise the actors enough for their performances in “Compliance” and making it all seem so real.

Directorially Craig Zobel has handled the material very sensitively and seriously.  He doesn’t go for any cheap or titillating thrills (although I do question his close-up on a straw during the scene when Becky performs fellatio on Evan, it seemed a little obvious), instead focusing on making the drama incredibly real.  I especially thought the scenes before the prank call was taken to be handled very well indeed and gave a great reality to the working life of a fast food restaurant, as well as giving us an understanding of all of the characters to be involved in this story.  To be able to get this across in just a few short scenes is masterful.  I must admit that I thought Zobel’s decision to shoot “Compliance” in the wide 2:35 ratio as inspired, especially because I assume that it would have made the claustrophobic atmosphere that much harder to achieve, but he does a great job with some brilliant uses of composition and framing.  The only thing I question about Zobel’s direction is his decision to let us, the audience, see Officer Daniels during the phone call.  Granted, he elicited a fantastic performance out of Healy in the role, but I’m not sure if the film wouldn’t work better if Daniels doesn’t appear except as a voice, which is how the characters themselves only interact with him.  Maybe there could have been a reveal at the end showing him to be just a normal guy, I don’t know, but it is just a decision I question.  Finally I must quickly mention the brilliant sound design and sound editing especially during transitions, it was great stuff indeed.

In regards to the real case, the actual thing happened at a McDonald’s store in Kentucky, USA in 2004, and the victim of the crime was a young 18 year old girl named Louise Ogborn (the Becky character in the film).  Ogborn’s manager was Donna Summers (Sandra)  who initiated the strip search on her after a prank caller, David R. Stewart, posed as a police officer and told her to do it.  Ogborn and Summers both sued their employers, McDonalds, over their negligence to inform their staff about this prank caller who had been victimizing fast food restaurants in particular for some time.  McDonald’s knew of the threat but told none of their staff about it and Ogborn was awarded $6.1 million while Summers received $1.1 million.  Walter Nix, who was Summers’ fiancé at the time, was sentenced for five years in prison for his part in the sexual abuse of Ogborn.  Amazingly, Stewart (who was a former prison guard) escaped conviction entirely even though evidence was found at his house linking him to the crimes.

Overall, “Compliance” is not an easy film to watch but it is an important one.  The film looks at how willing normal people are at inflicting pain and abuse upon another human being under the guise of “doing the right” thing.  It also looks at how people are often afraid to question authority even when what they are being told to do make no moral sense at all.  “Compliance” is a wonderfully acted and directed film, and is a very sad and unbelievable story about the abuse of a young fast food worker, whose degradation was so bad that it should never be forgotten.  It is a tough film, but a great one.

4 Stars.   

TOP TEN - MIFF 2012

Well, it is time for me to reveal my top ten for MIFF 2012, so with out further to do, lets get straight into it:

10.  AMOUR

9.  SOUND OF MY VOICE

8.  MANIAC

7.  FOR LOVE'S SAKE

6.  BULLY

5.  JAYNE MANSFIELD'S CAR

4.  HIMIZU

3.  KILLER JOE

2.  THE HUNT

1.  FACING MIRRORS

So there you have it, for the second consecutive year, an Iranian film has been my favourite of the festival.  Unusual though, "Facing Mirrors" was the only film from Iran that I saw at this year's MIFF, but obviously its quality was so great that it still took my number one spot.  I want to point out two titles that I was unable to see due to clashes in my schedule that had the potential to make this list and they were Ben Wheatley's "Sightseers" and Abbas Kiarostami's "Like Someone In Love" (which sadly I missed to see the woeful "V/H/S").  Well that's it for another year, I look forward to doing the whole MIFF experience again next year, but until then it is time to resume my regular reviews.