CRIMES OF THE FUTURE - MIFF 2022

Coming into 2022, my most anticipated film of the year was David Cronenberg's “Crimes of the Future”. Similar to Dario Argento and his film “Dark Glasses”, “Crimes of the Future” saw Cronenberg return to the director's chair for the first time in eight years. He too also dusted off an old script that he had written decades earlier and returned to the genre where he originally made a name for himself. In Cronenberg's case, this was the “body horror” film.

The MIFF guide describes the plot of the film like so: “In an industrial future, human evolution is accelerating grotesquely. Bodies are sprouting extra organs and losing the sensation of pain. Eating and sleeping require Freudian machines. And performance artist Saul Tenser, whose partner Caprice surgically removes his superfluous organs, has become a figure of notoriety. But the National Organ Registry seems suspicious of Saul – and its skittish, intense investigator has a more-than-professional interest in him. Meanwhile, an anarchic cult is embracing change in a shadowy underworld.”

My screening of “Crimes of the Future” at MIFF was actually my second viewing of the film, but the first on the big screen and with an audience. While there is still a lot I like about the film, this second screening seemed to highlight more the deficiencies of “Crimes of the Future” and the stuff that doesn't work. Right up front though, it is immediately definable as a David Cronenberg film; it is Cronenberg through and through. From the opening frame it looks, feels and sounds like a Cronenberg film, and no-one who is familiar with the man's work would have any problem identifying the author of “Crimes of the Future”. So in that regard, it is pleasing to see that his lengthy hiatus from filmmaking (at least in terms of “his” career) didn't cause him to lose any of his cinematic identity, particularly in terms of his body horror films, as while this is his first film in eight years, it is actually his first body horror film since 1999's “eXistenZ”, which incidentally was around the same time that “Crimes of the Future” was actually written.

Something else that David Cronenberg hasn't lost the ability to do is shock people, as he begins his latest film with the confronting and disturbing murder of an eight year old boy by his distressed mother. Right from this opening scene, we understand that Cronenberg will not be holding back and that the world he has created is a dangerous place to live in.

As usual, Cronenberg comes up with a lot of very interesting ideas within “Crimes of the Future” and I think it is these ideas that are the one of the strongest elements of the film. The idea that the human body has come as far as it possibly can and is thus beginning to evolve naturally to cope better with the world as it now is. The question is whether we decide to fight these mutations or accept it and change into whatever the next step of evolution brings. However there are a large number of factions who are against this line of thought, particularly the government, as they fear it will bring an end to humanity as we know it. Change is scary. Already, with the human body no longer feeling any pain, “desktop” surgeries (performed in the street by anyone) are the latest fad that sees people altering their own bodies via surgery, just for the pleasure of it. As Kristen Stewart's character says later in the film “surgery is the new sex”. I thought all these ideas were so heady and magnificent, and when they are explored in the film in depth, “Crimes of the Future” is at its strongest. However Cronenberg unfortunately spreads his story far too thin by adding in a number of other elements and plot strands, that either do not work at all, or dilute the stronger elements by their inclusion. Personally I think the script needed to be worked on more and the story made tighter because there are elements within the story that are quite confusing and then there are parts that just flat out do not work, like the poorly conceived “inner” beauty pageant that Saul Tenser registers for (although it does set up a great “Videodrome-esque” visual moment later in the film).

I also thought there were a lot of performance issues in the film too, which did not help my confusion at times. Outside of both, Don McKellar and particularly Kristen Stewart (who play bureaucrats at the Organ Registration Centre, and are excellent), I felt the rest of the performances were on the suspect side. The most surprising being Viggo Mortensen's utterly bizarre and flat portrayal of Saul Tenser, the performance artist in the film who is something of a celebrity for removing his newly grown organs onstage. Mortensen is a fantastic actor, and this is his fourth collaboration with David Cronenberg, but it is also his least successful. It is so odd, with his strange gurgles, coughs and moans throughout (I understand that Saul is struggling due to the movement of his current organs and creation of new ones, but it still felt wrong or odd). He also spends the majority of his performance in a crouched position, but there is a real world reason for this as Mortensen suffered quad damage when he was struck by a horse at a derby prior to filming, which meant that he was unable to stand longer than two minutes at any time. It makes me wonder if this injury also then played a part in the design of Saul Tenser's wardrobe, as he is regularly dressed in all black complete with hood and face mask. Whilst I have no proof of this, I do wonder if he is dressed this way so that he is easy to double for anything that Mortensen may have had trouble performing. I know I sound harsh here, but it screams of compromise to me and does the film no favours. Similarly Mortensen's partner in crime, Lea Seydoux (who plays Caprice) also underwhelms in her role. She seems confused at times at what she is doing and what is going on in the story. She just doesn't feel organic in that world. Furthermore, I felt that Seydoux and Mortensen lacked chemistry, both as romantic partners and as performance artists working together. I also need to mention that a number of smaller roles are filled by actors with very thick accents, making their dialogue hard to understand at times.

Where the film does succeed though is in its visual elements and where it is unmistakable as a David Cronenberg film. Aside from a few dodgy CGI effects (no doubt due to the limited budget), Cronenberg's weird, fleshy and organic looking props, objects and gadgets are on full display here. From the weird bone-like chair that Saul sits in while eating, to the cocoon-like bed he sleeps in, to the alternate bed (originally an autopsy table) Saul and Caprice use in their shows; this is all magnificent stuff, and it is in these designs where is feels the most obvious that “eXistenZ” and “Crimes of the Future” are of the same Cronenberg vintage. Hell, Caprice's remote control she uses during the surgeries could be the sister of the game pods Allegra uses in “eXistenZ”, they are so similar (which I love).

Once again, Carol Spier is in charge of the production design of “Crimes of the Future”. She is a long-time collaborator of Cronenberg's and once again her work is just perfect. I feel like I am on repeat here, but her production design is full of wonderful textures, and materials, peeling paint and imperfections. Cronenberg is a master at world building, and in this regard I think Spier is his greatest collaborator in creating these worlds. Her work is never flashy, but feels real, lived in, damaged and dangerous.

Speaking of long-time collaborators, this is actually the first feature film since 1988's “Dead Ringers” that Peter Suschitzky has not served as cinematographer on one of David Cronenberg's films, with the duties falling to Douglas Koch on “Crimes of the Future”, and he does so with aplomb. The film still has that dark, dank Cronenberg feel to it, not relying on bright lighting, or the use of primary colours, whilst focusing more on earthy and organic tones. It is a beautiful looking film (in a weirdly demented and disturbing way), although I must say that during this second viewing, I did notice a lot of odd frame compositions caused by Mortensen's crouching. I also absolutely hated(!) the final shot of the film which looked beyond cheap and very amateurish.

The greatest aspect of “Crimes of the Future” though is Howard Shore's magnificent and totally unusual score. I loved it so much particularly because of how different it was from the norm. It is futuristic sounding, whilst almost giving a downbeat feeling, but it is just fantastic. I wish my musical knowledge was greater so I could go into more detail about what makes it great, but sadly I can basically only tell you what I like when it comes to music (and if I think it works for the film), and I loved the score of “Crimes of the Future” so much!

Overall, whilst I liked “Crimes of the Future” a lot on my first viewing, I sadly found it did not hold up as well on my second viewing at MIFF. There is a lot to like within the film, but ultimately I feel that Cronenberg added too many plot threads causing the story to be spread too thin at times, which causes confusion. I also have some misgivings of most of the performances in the film, particularly the odd turn by Viggo Mortensen. The film is packed with wonderful ideas though, and Howard Shore's score is truly outstanding. “Crimes of the Future” is a good film, it is just not a great film. Still I suppose a “good” Cronenberg film is better than most directors at their best, due to the fact that he is a true original. I would still recommend “Crimes of the Future”to fans of David Cronenberg, just with a slight caveat though.

3 Stars.

THE QUIET GIRL - MIFF 2022

The imdb synopsis of “The Quiet Girl” sums up the film really well so I am going to use that myself here: Set in rural Ireland “in 1981, the film tells the story of a quiet, neglected, young girl who is sent away for the summer from her dysfunctional family to live with "her mother's people". These are Seán and Eibhlín Cinnsealach; a middle-aged couple she has never met. Slowly, in the care of this couple, Cáit blossoms and discovers a new way of living, but in this house where affection grows and there are meant to be no secrets, she discovers one.”

“The Quiet Girl” turned out to be a surprise hit in the UK and Ireland earlier this year, with audiences absolutely falling in love with it. What may sound like a rather dry film on paper, watching a young grow up in Ireland in the 1980s, is anything but in the finished product. Yes, this is the simplest of stories, but it has been told with a beautifully delicate touch which results in a tale filled to the brim with genuine emotion. After my viewing at MIFF, it was very easy to see why this film has been so loved by so many. Here we have an understated and fantastically unassuming but powerfully emotional tale, that is just so human. It celebrates love, and caring for one another, and putting the time in to help, nurture and teach someone in our care. It is definitely a crowd pleaser, and this is not something I often go for, but “The Quiet Girl” weaved its spell on me, and exposed me for the big softy that I truly am.

The film tells its story via a deliberate pace, that some would no doubt call slow. Slow films have never bothered me, as it gives you the time to fall into the world onscreen fully. Here we meet Cáit, a beautiful young girl around the age of eight. She lives in a large family who are rather poor, but this could have more to do with her father's habits of spending all their money on booze and gambling, rather than the fact they have no money at all. You immediately feel sorry for this girl, as she is almost invisible to her family. She is never seen, and appears to only be spoken to when she is being unfairly yelled at for something. The poor thing struggles in school as it is obvious her parents haven't taken the time to help her, or provide her with an environment where she can learn at home. With her mother pregnant yet again, the family decides to ship Cáit off to her mother's cousin for the summer holidays. It is here where we witness to two heartbreaking moments that sum up how little Cáit means to her family. The first is when her mother and father are deciding how long to send Cáit away for, and the father says “they can keep her for as long as they want”. The comment is disgraceful enough, but it is the fact that Cáit hears the comment that makes it hurt so much. The other moment is when she leaves, and her mother calls out to her siblings to say goodbye to her, and none of them can be bothered to stop playing for a minute to say goodbye. The poor thing, no wonder Cáit is so withdrawn. However from the moment she arrives at her new house for the summer and steps out of the car, it is almost like the world opens up for her, and you know she is going to be okay. It is almost a “Wizard of Oz” moment, when Dorothy opens the cabin door and the sepia tones disappear and the colour explodes onto the screen. The world suddenly seems brighter and more optimistic for Cáit, and then she meets Eibhlín, who immediately starts pampering the young girl's hair. You cannot help but smile, because you know that Cáit has been finally seen.

As I have mentioned above, “The Quiet Girl” is a modest and simple film, but it has been so beautifully made. Director Colm Bairéad has sensitively directed the film, keeping it very grounded without the use of grandstanding emotional manipulations that you would likely see if this film had been made in Hollywood. The film is all the better for it, and is an incredibly emotional experience, but each moment is earned and not forced upon the audience. The pain you feel for Cáit in the beginning, and then you just beam for her as she starts to come out of her shell and grow. Bairéad chose to shoot his film in the 1:33 or “square” aspect ratio, which seems to becoming more regular lately and something that I am liking more and more. It seems to work exceptionally well with character driven films in particular, as when you go in for a close up on a character, the square frame really allows you to get as close as possible, which helps convey the depth of a character's emotions in any given moment. The cinematography by Kate McCullough is exquisite. It is not flashy, nor does the camera move excessively but the images of the rural Irish landscape are so beautiful. She also does a great job of catching the light in Cáit's gorgeous big blue eyes. McCullough has been ably assisted by Emma Lowney's exception production design. I mentioned in my review of “1976”, that I love movies that are not afraid of showing different textures in their production design, or imperfections in a location, because it gives the feeling that we a looking at a real lived-in space. This is certainly true of “The Quiet Girl”. It is a beautiful old house where Cáit goes to live, and you can tell that the house has many stories to tell from over the years. Particularly in regard to the wallpaper that she finds in her bedroom.

Again, like “1976”, the reason that “The Quiet Girl” works as well as it does is the stunning lead performance from Catherine Clinch who plays Cáit. She is mesmerising; you cannot take your eyes off of her. As the title suggests, she does not say very much in terms of dialogue but those big blue eyes tell you so much, and you can see her change and grow and become more confident in herself under the attention and love of the Cinnsealach's care. Clinch's performance is both simple and subtle which mirrors the film she is starring in. Mark my words, we are witnessing a star of the future here. It is so impressive seeing her conveying so much, while doing so little. Again, she has no “big” moments in the film, except for the beautifully heartbreaking finale, which has been set up perfectly by director Bairéad earlier in the film, and is a well and truly earned moment.

I will now briefly touch on the two “foster parents” who are both lovely characters. Right from the start, Eibhlín loves and nurtures young Cáit, regularly brushing her hair, washing her, and teaching her how to prepare vegetables for dinner. There is constant interaction between the two and we see Cáit really begin to blossom from this. She feels more confident in herself and thus things like her problem of bed wetting starts to disappear, as does her reading and scholarly activities improve. The man of the house, Seán, is initially more standoffish and at times strict with the girl. He rarely looks her in the eyes, and speaks to her in a mono toned voice, if he speaks to her at all. During these early moments, Seán clearly reminds Cáit of her father. However when Seán slowly begins to thaw towards her, this is when we really see Cáit grow, as she forms a relationship with Seán unlike any other she has had in her life beforehand. She finally has a father figure to look up to, and soon the two of them are always together. He teaches her how to look after and milk the cows, feed the calf, clean the barn, and the two of them have a daily ritual where he times Cáit as she runs to the mailbox and back. It is in these moments, where the only use of slow motion is used in the film, to highlight just how happy Cáit is and how far she has come. The actors portraying Eibhlín and Seán, Carrie Crowley and Andrew Bennett respectively, are pitch perfect.

Two things I have to briefly mention also, are the fact that “The Quiet Girl” is predominately told in subtitled Irish Gaelic, which I think was a first for me, but another I loved about this great film. The other thing is just how heartbreakingly beautiful the film's finale is. It is essentially the same ending as a film in my top twenty last year (which I wont reveal as it will give away this film's ending), although the roles are reversed. Like that previous film, I was totally sucked in by this ending, and it totally broke me (a tear may have even left my eye). Again, like I mentioned before, as much as the ending is very emotional, it is a moment that has been totally earned.

Overall, like everyone else in the world, I too fell in love with “The Quiet Girl”. It is a beautiful and simple story, told with the utmost sensitivity, that is also a powerfully emotional experience. This is not the usual type of film that I am drawn to, but the exceptional quality of “The Quiet Girl” ended up exposing me for the true softy I am. The film is a definite crowd pleaser, and as such I recommend it for all audiences. Even if you are not a fan of slow or subtitled films, I suggest you take the chance on “The Quiet Girl”; you will not be disappointed.

4 Stars.

1976 - MIFF 2022

Set in Chile 1976, during the early years of Pinochet's dictatorship, Carmen and her well-to-do doctor husband head off to their beach house to spend time with their grandchildren on the holidays, and to prepare for the birthday party of one of their granddaughters. Carmen is a giving and caring person, and in her free time she reads to the blind at the local church. Essentially preying upon this kindness, the family priest comes to Carmen asking for her help to take care of a wounded man that he is sheltering within the church in secret. Her decision to help alters the trajectory of her life immediately and forever, as she is thrust into a menacing world she is unfamiliar with, a world where she can trust no one, and where a single mistake could cost her life or the lives of her loved ones, as her eyes are opened to the dangerous reality of Pinochet's Chile.

Director Manuela Martelli has created a wonderful and very powerful film in “1976”. It is such an intense ride that I found myself on the edge of my seat right from the very beginning. Martelli does an excellent job of setting up the drama right from the opening scene, as well as giving the audience a sense of anticipation of the world Carmen is soon to enter. We witness Carmen, at the local hardware store, buying paint, attempting to get an exact type of pink for the walls of her beach house. Whilst the paint is being mixed, suddenly there is a massive commotion outside where a girl is screaming for her life, before she is driven away and her cries are silenced. We never see the abduction, only hear it, as we stay indoors where Carmen in. In doing this, Martelli shows that while Carmen lives in Pinochet's Chile, a place where people seem to regularly disappear if they are against or show dissent to the current regime, it is a world that has yet to directly touch Carmen. However right towards the end of the scene, done via a fantastically simple yet powerful shot, a few drops of the pink paint drip onto Carmen's shoes. The drops symbolising blood, announce to the audience that the dangerous world outside that Carmen thought she was safe from, is right outside her door and she is about to step her foot inside it. It is a brilliant opening scene, economically directed, that says so much.

The early scenes of Carmen preparing the house, interacting with family and friends, and at work reading to the blind, are so important in showing the kind of happy and care-free life she was leading prior, because as soon as she accepts the priest's offer to help the wounded young man, not only does her life change forever, but so does the pace and tension of the film itself. Suddenly every decision, moment, thought or action that Carmen makes, the consequences are life altering. I must say that I am a huge fan of paranoid thrillers, and I am sure that “1976” will soon be considered a classic within this genre. The film continually builds and builds and builds, until the suspense and tension are unbearable, right up to the shocking finale.

Whilst the film is brilliant on a number of levels, the success of “1976” hinges on the performance of Aline Kuppenheim (who plays Carmen) who just delivers in spades. She is so light and carefree in the early scenes, whereas by the end you can feel the weight this entire ordeal is having on her, to the point that she appears to have aged years in just a couple of weeks. It is interesting that initially when she meets the hidden man, she chooses not to ask him any questions about who he really is, or how he acquired his wound, but you can tell that she knows that what the priest told her is not the truth. Carmen is not a stupid woman, but she is caught out of her depth in a world that she is not trained to be involved in. Whilst initially she is only meant to be helping with the wound of this young man, Carmen is soon thrust into doing covert and secret operations, delivering messages to members in the young man's group. Personally I think this is when Kuppenheim really shines in the role, as she is so convincing portraying this poor woman who appears close to a nervous breakdown, she is so terrified and paranoid of anything or anyone that is around her. She is also particularly brilliant in a scene on a yacht with her husband and friends. In the scene, she finds herself in a conversation that opposes the political decisions of the man she is helping, and her friends are not shy in relaying what they think should happen to such people. The pain you can see in Kuppenheim's eyes in this scene, whilst trying to still appear normal and relaxed, is just a sensational bit of acting. The poor woman is entirely alone whilst on this boat filled with her friends. You really understand what she is going through and just how alone she is, not even being able to confide in her husband. This is a woman who days earlier, the most stressful part of her day was trying to find the perfect shade of pink, whereas now she is doing things like trying to find medicine (behind the back of her doctor husband) on the black market for this wounded man, and where every conversation or interaction she questions, causing her paranoia to be massively heightened, while at the same time trying to appear calm and normal. Also, what happens if Carmen's paranoia turns out to be justified?? Anyway, it is a truly great performance from Aline Kuppenheim, she is in every scene of the film, and never puts a foot wrong once.

As I hinted at earlier, Manuela Martelli's direction is perfect in its detail and oh so confident in its execution. It is a classy looking film, with Martelli employing a classic style of filmmaking relying heavily on beautifully composed images, and perfectly timed editing to portray the immediacy and tensions of the world of “1976”. Equally as important as what she shows, is Martelli's decision in what she doesn't show. In a film in where she is exploring the world of Chile under the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, she makes the bold and brave decision to not give his military power a face in the film at all. We do get to see from time to time the consequences of interactions with the military, however we never once see a soldier in the film at all. The story is told entirely from this woman's perspective which is another reason why I think “1976” is such a special film. What is also most impressive is that this is Manuela Martelli's feature length debut, although it has been made with the confidence and skill of a seasoned veteran.

Behind the camera, the film has been put together by a number of very talented women. I was particularly impressed by the period detail in the art direction by Francisca Correa. I love a film that highlights textures and different tactile materials in their production design, and Correa does so here to create a world that feels fully lived in. Soledad Rodriguez's cinematography is slick and precise, relying on images that are a little off tilt or regularly reflected off mirrors (particularly in the second half) which enhances the paranoia of the story. Probably the thing that I was most impressed by, and thought helped the movie enormously, was Maria Portugal's pulse pounding and very dark score. Being synth heavy, it felt very eighties, but it kept the tension of the film forever ratcheted at eleven.

Overall, I was thoroughly impressed by Manula Martelli's “1976”, and thought it was a seriously intense cinema experience. Highlighting life in Pinochet's Chile via the eyes of a middle aged woman, without the representation of the military was a bold choice, but one that works wonderfully well. It was my second film at this year's MIFF, and a great way to start the festival. I was so impressed by “1976”, and thought it was an excellent example of the paranoid thriller. I recommend it wholeheartedly, but man, is it an intense ride. It is a fantastic film.

4 Stars.