R.M.N. - MIFF 2022

 

Director Cristian Mungiu's latest film is described like this in the MIFF guide: “After quitting his job in Germany, hulking factory worker Matthias returns home to his small Transylvanian village. There, he hopes to reconnect with his young son Rudi, who’s been left in the care of his estranged wife Ana, and rendered speechless by something terrifying in the woods. Meanwhile, Matthias is having an affair with Csilla, who manages a small factory that has just hired some Sri Lankan workers – an arrangement that shatters the tenuous peace of the community and brings their fears, prejudices and conflicts to the surface.”

I hadn't planned on writing a review for “R.M.N.”, but it is a film that still hasn't left my mind since I saw it days ago, so I thought maybe it is a sign to put pen to paper and talk about this brand new Romanian film. First up, I should explain the title, which I had to google after I watched it, since I had no idea why it was titled that. “R.M.N.” are actually the initials of the Romanian translation of an M.R.I, which is actually a clever title because the film is a look under the skin of a small multi-ethnic community, and its prejudices, fears and internal conflicts of its residents.

Cristian Mungiu has created another one of his fantastic social dramas with “R.M.N.” I particularly like the way he builds a story and lets it evolve naturally. He starts from a character-first basis, always creating fully rounded and developed characters with real world problems and issues they are dealing with. Mungiu also does a fantastic job of revealing these characters to us, and we feel like we know them intimately rather quickly. What is interesting about “R.M.N.” is that from where the story and film begins, it ends in a completely different place than you would expect, as different plot lines naturally begin to take on more importance to the story as a whole than the strand we followed initially. It is not at all jarring either, because the story evolves naturally and organically, like it does in real life. When “R.M.N.” begins we follow Matthias who has just been fired from his job in Germany, so heads back home to his family in Romania, but when he gets there he is shocked to find his young son no longer speaks due to something terrifying he saw in the surrounding woods. Matthias is incensed by the fact that his wife is babying the young boy by overprotecting him, and thus decides to teach him to finally become a man. He does this via aggressive parenting, taking the boy camping and hunting, teaching him how to shoot and look after himself. Due to his aggression shown towards the boy, and the fact that the boy is still so young, you feel that this is somehow going to all end in tragedy, but then the story naturally evolves into a tale of xenophobia when the local bakery factory hires three bakers from Sri Lanka, and the locals react negatively to this. Tensions and anger arise and worsen, as the bakery refuses to bend to local pressure to fire the foreign workers. What follows is a fantastic and disturbing look at the xenophobia and hypocrisy of a community, as well as the terrifying notion of a pack mentality.

As is the norm for Cristian Mungiu, he never judges any of his characters, but rather tells his story as honestly and realistically as possible. This gives the drama incredible weight because it feels so real and thus is easily relatable. He never shows a world of black or white, only grey, where no character is a total angel or demon, everyone has their flaws and strong elements too. As relatable as the story is, I think that for once “R.M.N.” is a film that caters to local audiences, if for nothing else than the constant language changes, often mid-conversation. The community where the film is set consists of locals who originate from Romania, Hungary and Germany, but in terms of languages in the film, as well as those for the above nations, English and French are also spoken at times. It is a subtitler's nightmare because personally I do not have an ear for either Romanian or Hungarian, so cannot tell when they change, and it is actually important in this film to know that difference because it figures into the plot. What they have done is change the colour of the subtitles each time the language changes, although I think Romanian is always white. Personally I would have liked if they had chosen a set colour for each language spoken, so while it is not a perfect solution, what they have come up with does help, but like I say, local audiences will understand the language intricacies much better than foreign audiences.

“R.M.N.” is a stunningly beautiful film from a visual standpoint. Mungiu has reunited with his “Graduation” cinematographer Tudor Vladimir Panduru and the two of them have created magic together, through both the camera and their use of the stunning Romanian locations. Romania in the winter is just gorgeous, and so many times I found myself stunned by the beauty onscreen. The snow covered forest and especially the local mine looked amazing. Even when shooting indoors, the film has been shot with cooler colour temperatures, with the production design using a lot of winter colours like blues, greys and whites too. Aside from looking “pretty”, the visuals perfectly encapsulate the tone and atmosphere of the film as “R.M.N.” is a very cold film. In terms of the season the story takes place, to the whole tone of the film, to the character interactions between one another; coldness permeates through this film.

Performances in the film are all excellent and very realistic, which helps in the fantastic character development and natural story progression in “R.M.N.” As great as all the above elements are, the film's strongest aspect is its story line, and its complex and layered look at human nature when the town's bigotry is revealed. Multiple points of views are expressed, with the film never taking sides, although it asks many questions. Personally I found the majority of the townsfolk's hypocrisy just shocking particularly because they cannot see it within themselves. Saying these bakery jobs should have gone to locals when none actually applied is disgraceful, but then to justify this by saying that is because locals have gone abroad to work as that is where both the work and money is, which is exactly what these Sri Lankan guys are doing by trying to get work in Romania. Their refusal to then not buy the bread because these foreigners have had their hands on the bread when they are making it, and they are deemed unclean just because they are different. The fact that a large majority of the locals are themselves not originally from Romania, but rather Hungary, is brought up but only increases the tensions amongst everyone. It is particularly frightening when this tension eventually explodes into violence and death threats against these poor Sri Lankans and the bakers that support them. Social media is used as a weapon against them, before a variation of the KKK is created to try and create a fear amongst these poor men who only want to do their job and be left alone. An aspect that I liked was how the manager and owner of the bakery are steadfast in their support of their workers, as are their workmates, as they have actually taken the time to get to know them and work with them, and know they are beautiful and lovely people. This togetherness is then used against them at the town meeting with others saying the bakery workers shouldn't get a vote because they are “biased” in their opinion because they know them. It is interesting though that when her bottom line is threatened, with everyone refusing to buy her bread, how the ideals and beliefs of the bakery's owner starts to bend, as she looks for a way to offload these poor Sri Lankan men, much to the disgust of her floor manager.

The film essentially climaxes at an extended scene set at a town meeting where everyone is allowed to have their say on the issues (although it is telling that the Sri Lankan men have not been invited themselves), where the town's bigotry and xenophobia really comes to light. Some of the uninformed opinions used as reasons to expel these men are just horrible. Particularly when they are spoken by leaders in the community, like the local priest and doctor, who should know better. Something that is repeated by many people in the meeting in a “I'm not racist” way is “I have nothing against these people, as long as they stay in their country”. It is also horrifying watching the pack mentality of the group try to dissuade the smaller factions just through their size and volume of their voice. In and of itself, it is an excellent scene, but within the movie as a whole, it stops it dead cold. Stylistically, it is completely different too, as it is shot in a single (very long) take with a stationary camera. It is almost a documentary approach, but it looks and feels completely different from the rest of the film. The acting is extraordinary in the scene, and as fascinating and thematically complex as the scene is, I still think it works against the movie as a whole. Whilst nothing is truly resolved by the end of the meeting, we understand the path they are heading. The film does have a couple of more scenes after this, before it ends in a rather unsatisfying and very surreal and symbolic manner. Whilst I was a fan of this film throughout, I was disappointed in its ending, which did not work for me.

Overall, Cristian Mungiu has created another fantastic social drama with “R.M.N.” exploring the sickness hidden not very deep under the surface of a local multi-ethnic Romanian community. Complex themes of bigotry and xenophobia are explored throughout maturely and without judgement. All of the actors are stellar and the film is just gorgeous to look at. While I found the ending rather unsatisfactory and a bit frustrating, what comes before it is so impressive and well layered, that I would still highly recommend “R.M.N.”

3.5 Stars.

SPEAK NO EVIL - MIFF 2022

 

The MIFF guide describes the film like so: “While on holiday in Tuscany, polite Danes Bjørn and Louise befriend vivacious Dutch couple Patrick and Karin. Their respective children, Agnes and Abel, seem to get along, and the meek Bjørn finds Patrick’s unfiltered machismo appealing. So much so that he jumps at the chance for their families to get together again when, months later, an invitation arrives to visit Patrick and Karin at their rural home in the Netherlands. Indeed, it would be dangerously impolite not to accept.”

This Danish / Dutch co-production has been receiving a lot of positive press recently in the horror community, often regarded as one of the best new horror films of the year. I find that you need to take these kind of recommendations with a grain of salt sometimes, as horror websites are particularly prone to hyperbole, and once they name something as “great”, their increased coverage on that film seem to become an attempt at a self-fulfilling prophecy. That said, I was very happy to see “Speak No Evil” in MIFF's “night shift” line-up and hoped that it would live up to the word-of-mouth I had been hearing about.

Frankly, I was unimpressed by “Speak No Evil” and thought it massively overrated, and there were a few reasons for my dislike. As I have said time and again, for a horror film to really work well, you need to care for its characters and about what happens to them, and I just could not care for any of them in “Speak No Evil”. The quartet of adults were so unlikeable, particularly the “villains” of the film (Patrick and Karin); it was so obvious that their company was toxic or worse, dangerous, that it made no sense that Bjørn and Louise hung around as long as they did. I am usually pretty lenient with the whole “stupid characters making stupid decisions” thing in horror films. It is a staple of the genre and you need it sometimes for the horror to begin. Here though, it really got on my nerves, possibly because their stupidity was not only putting themselves in danger, but also their young daughter too. I will say that at least the Dane family made an attempt to leave when they felt the situation was more than a little off, and they succeed too, but when they turn around and go back, I could not stop rolling my eyes. I must say though that I did find it a little amusing that the reason for them turning back was almost exactly the same situation as a very famous television commercial here in Australia, right down to the stuffed rabbit.

Another big issue I had with “Speak No Evil” is that I worked out the twist almost immediately. You know something is not right with the Dutch couple and because of that, I admit, it is an uncomfortable watch, but because I was sure I knew the twist, the film held no surprises for me; I knew exactly where it was going and how it would end up, almost right up to the final shot. Obviously I have no intention of giving away any of the film's secrets, but by working it out so early, the film was no longer an exercise of discovery for me, it was almost like I was waiting for the film to catch up with me. I am not saying all of this in a “look at me, I'm so clever” way, but rather trying to explain why “Speak No Evil” didn't work for me.

Thinking about it later, I thought that “Speak No Evil” would probably work really well if it was marketed as a straight but uncomfortable drama rather than as a horror film. This way the final half an hour would come as a massive gut punch, but because we know that it is a horror film, we are informed to the fact that it is going to turn at some point and go very bad. The lead up to the horror is also much longer than is the norm, although right from the opening beat, the music by Sune Kølster immediately tells you what type of film you are watching; it is loud, bombastic and very ominous, and in and of itself, I actually really liked the music, but I would never call it subtle.

From a horror perspective, much has been made about the final half an hour of “Speak No Evil”, and yes it is very well done and hits hard. It is incredibly hard to watch, but very effective in what it sets out to do, which is to shock and disturb the audience. Something I have noticed as I get older, my tastes are changing, and this is also true of the horror cinema I like. These days I prefer more atmospheric based horror, as opposed to the extreme horror I used to love when I was younger. As such, I think I would've responded a lot more positively to the brutal and sadistic ending of “Speak No Evil” if I had seen it back then, because while I can see that it has been well done and is very effective, after awhile I felt it bordered on the unnecessarily cruel and started to feel gratuitous. (Yep, I've gone soft in my old age.)

The other big issue I have with Patrick and Karin, the Dutch “villains”, is that we are given no motive for their actions. Whilst I do not think a motive is needed for every horror film, it felt like here that there should have been some explanation to justify their horrible crimes. Without it, the only reasoning you can come away with is that they are just a bunch of homicidal arseholes taking pleasure in other people's pain, but this comes across as lazy and unimaginative writing. I will admit that I found the line “Because you let me” to be absolutely chilling (even if it did feel a bit too close to “The Strangers” “because you were home” line), and it made you want to scream at the protagonists, Bjørn and Louise, even more!: “See?!! You should have fought for yourself and your family more!!! Stop being so damned polite!!!” It makes their decision making throughout the film that much more frustrating too. One interesting thing to note about the actors who play the Dutch couple, Fedja van Huêt and Karina Smulders, is that they are actually married in real life, which explains their chemistry and naturalism together.

Overall, after all the hype I had heard about “Speak No Evil”, I found it to be very overrated. Whilst I agree it has been well made, unfortunately the characters are either unlikeable or so frustrating in their decision making, that I just did not enjoy being in their company for the film's 97 minute running time, nor did I care about what happened to them. “Speak No Evil” is an uncomfortable watch, but for me, it was also a very frustrating watch, with the lead-up to the “good stuff” taking far too long to get there. The last half an hour hits very hard and it is quite confronting, so be prepared for it, as it gets nasty. While the film did not work for me, it seemed to play better for most of the MIFF audience I saw it with, so take that how you will, but for me I was sadly left disappointed by “Speak No Evil”.

2.5 Stars.

FLUX GOURMET - MIFF 2022

 

The MIFF guide does an excellent job at describing the madness that is “Flux Gourmet”: “On a month-long residency at a prestigious art institute, an unnamed trio of ‘sonic caterers’ – artists who create music with food and related items – play with flavour, flangers and fornication under the watchful eye of their benefactor, the imperious Jan Stevens, whose meddling exacerbates the group’s backstage bickering. Outside the walls, a rival collective named the Mangrove Snacks conducts acts of gastronomic terrorism in protest at their rejection by Stevens, who doesn’t like what they do with terrapins. Documenting the proceedings is a flatulent flâneur, whose intestinal issues are not being helped by the institute’s in-house doctor.”

Peter Strickland's fifth feature “Flux Gourmet” was on my most anticipated list of 2022. I wrote back then that I had no idea what I would get with the film, and that out of all of the films on that list, “Flux Gourmet” had the biggest chance of being a total dud. I am happy to report that the opposite is true and that “Flux Gourmet” is an unmitigated success and is yet another of Strickland's idiosyncratic creations that fits comfortably amongst his brilliant, yet very odd oeuvre. Before my screening at MIFF, I had actually already seen the film, but knew that it would work so well with an audience and on the big screen that there was no way I was missing my chance to see it like that. I love this film so much, but really have no idea why or how it works so well.

Combining two tonally different plot threads, writer / director Peter Strickland has done almost the impossible and created gold with “Flux Gourmet”. The main part of the film is a very, very funny look at an unnamed “sonic collective” and their time together during their residency at an exclusive art institute, where they constantly bicker amongst themselves and with their director, before starting to implode. Documenting their stay at the residency is a “dossiage”, Stones, who is struggling with a gastrointestinal disorder, making him feel uncomfortable within the group due to the excess wind his body needs to regularly release, and it is Stones' ordeal that is the second plot thread of the film. The tones between the two plot threads couldn't be more different and yet they live together harmoniously in the same film. The whole aspect involving the sonic collective is so over-the-top and done with tongue planted firmly in their cheek; it is hilarious and we laugh both with the group and at the group. However Strickland then balances the absurdity of the sonic collective with the complete sincerity in regards to Stones' condition and the pain and awkwardness he feels because of it. Whilst the situations he finds himself in are humorous (not to mention his dead-pan narration of his problems, told in subtitled Greek), Strickland never once makes fun of him or his condition. Strickland then is able to make both plot threads come together for a very satisfying conclusion that is also, amazingly, quite poignant too. Again, I have no idea how he does it, and it really shouldn't work, but it just does!

I love this film so much and love so many elements about it that I am now going to gush over these elements incessantly (although there is so much I like about “Flux Gourmet”, I doubt I will be able to highlight them all). Firstly, the entire cast is excellent; they all clearly understood just what type of film they were making, as well as the tone of the film, and they deliver in spades. The collective consists of Billy, Lamina and their leader Elle (“I'm the boss!”), and are played by Asa Butterfield, Ariane Labed, and Fatma Mohamed, and they are all wonderful. Strickland muse and regular Fatma Mohamed is an absolute superstar in “Flux Gourmet”; she is so funny and pissy in equal measure. Her insane arrogance is hilarious when she refuses to listen to anyone's ideas or suggestions as it would quash her artistic sensibilities. It is all about the performance with Elle, but this is probably because she does not understand the technical side of her culinary collective, which Billy and Lamina have to handle. There is a very funny and ongoing joke in the film after she refuses to take the flanger down a notch, simply because it was not her idea. It turns out that she doesn't even know what a flanger is or what it does (“I do. I thought you said blanger”). Mohamed has been in all of Peter Strickland's films so far, but this comedic side is something we haven't seen before from her, but she is just hilarious. Asa Butterfield is a revelation as Billy, the nice dumb guy of the group who has a sexual fetish for eggs. He plays him very matter-of-factly, like he has just fallen into this life and is happy to go with the flow. He has a number of great scenes but I particularly liked his one-on-one interviews with Stones, and his after dinner speech, particularly because he has no filter and is so honest. Rounding out the trio is Ariane Labed playing Lamina, who out of the three has the least to do, but makes everyone of her moments count.

Outside the trio, we have the other two important characters to the film: Jan Stevens, the director of the institute, and Stones, the man documenting the collective's stay during their residency. Gwendoline Christie plays Jan Stevens and she is right up there with Fatma Mohamed in being total gold in “Flux Gourmet”. The bitter arguments with Elle, her seduction of Billy, her fear of the Mangrove Snacks and their escalated violence, she is brilliant in all these facets and so believable in a very heightened style that suits the film perfectly. Anyone familiar with Strickland's past films will know that he has an overly florid and poetic style of writing, with some of the dialogue being very complex and involving. Jan Stevens is the character who gets the bulk of these lines in “Flux Gourmet” and this very amusing dialogue just rolls of Christie's tongue effortlessly. Somehow it all sounds so natural coming out of her mouth. Strickland also has a habit in his films of going very big and out there with his costumes, and again Jan Stevens is the lucky character who wears the brunt of this madness. Each outfit she wears is so ridiculous and so over-the-top, but you cannot wait to see what she has on next in the following scene. Her nightwear particularly is just insane, and you cannot help laughing at it. Makis Papadimitriou, as Stones, has the least flashy roll but is very good at expressing just how uncomfortable he is with his disorder, and how he gets progressively more frightened that he may be going to die from it. He is much more dead-pan than the rest of the cast, but it works so well.

As I have said numerous times, I love a director who has a style that is recognisable as their own, and Peter Strickland certainly has that. What makes it more impressive is that none of his films resemble one another, they are all so different, but when you watch them, you know that only one man could have made the film. He has a very 70's European feel to his visuals, and it is well known that he has a fondness for this era of cinema. This is true once again with “Flux Gourmet” as we have scenes of the characters walking from their house to the institute in long capes, like something you would see in a Jean Rollin or Jess Franco film. There is also a very amusing reference to Mario Bava's “Diabolik”, when the trio, dressed like the spy character from that film, break in to Jan Stevens' bedroom to look for their flanger. The funniest bit being the way Billy's hair sticks out the eye-holes making him instantly recognisable if seen. Strickland clearly has love for sound, as this is his second film where sound plays a major role (the other being his second film, “Berberian Sound Studio” where Toby Jones plays a sound engineer working on the foley of a very violent Italian horror film). He is also part of, or at least has been in the past, of a culinary collective, so not only is “Flux Gourmet” a very personal film for him, but you could imagine that it would be pretty true in regards to the details of that world.

Another thing I loved in the film was when the collective had to do their drama exercises. They all have to pretend they are shopping, whilst Jan Stevens tells them situations to perform. The walls are bare and they have no props to help them, although Strickland has added sound to these moments to give them an added oomph. It is just another in a long line of things that you would think shouldn't work in “Flux Gourmet” but it just does.

Probably the thing I was most impressed by though was Strickland's handling of the ending and his ability to make something poignant out of all the insanity that has come before it. Whilst I wont go into details about how it gets to this point, a lot of Stone's character arc is about just how lonely it is when you have a gastrointestinal disorder, so to end the film on his smile due to him now being a part of something (and no longer alone) rather than being on the outside looking in, I thought was both lovely and surprising, and gave the film so much heart, despite it being bat-shit crazy.

Overall, I love Peter Strickland's “Flux Gourmet” so much and think it is probably his best film to date. There is so much I love about the film, that I barely scratched the surface of it here. It is filled to the brim with so many wonderful, crazy and hilarious moments that I believe you will be entertained throughout. Yes, the film is a little odd, so it may not be for everyone, but I will say that the majority of the audience I saw it with at MIFF seemed to love it, with there being a lot of laughter heard. The performances are all knock outs, the story has heart, and did I mention that it is so, so funny. Just go see this genius and very original film.

4 Stars.

DECISION TO LEAVE - MIFF 2022

Director Park Chan-wook's first film in six years is described in the MIFF guide like so: “After lamenting the lack of interesting cases in Busan, scrupulous detective Hae-joon lands a whale – a possible homicide – when he’s enlisted to investigate the death of a man whose body is found at the bottom of a cliff. The prime suspect is the man’s beautiful Chinese wife, Seo-rae, who is suspiciously unmoved by the events that have left her widowed. But Hae-joon’s interest in the woman quickly transcends the professional, and she appears to reciprocate his nascent desire. Things are about to get complicated.”

Park Chan-wook's “Decision to Leave” was actually my most anticipated film of last year, and although the film was finished and ready, due to the global pandemic, it was decided to delay its release until 2022 to give the film its best possible chance to succeed in this current climate. Now the film is finally here, so did it live up to my lofty expectations?

“Decision to Leave” sees Park Chan-wook tackling much lighter fare than is the the norm for this very talented South Korean director. The film is a romantic thriller that is essentially a riff on Alfred Hitchcock's “Vertigo”, although the first half of “Decision to Leave” is much lighter and comedic than anything seen in that earlier classic. Whilst I have nothing against a director trying new things, in fact I applaud it, but if I am honest, I was a little taken aback by the initial tone of the film. I was expecting a very serious and dark thriller, the kind Park has made a name for himself in, so it took me a little while to actually get into “Decision to Leave” and become fully engaged. The tone of the film wasn't the only change from the norm for Park, as I think “Decision to Leave” is the most visually subdued film I have seen from him yet. Do not get me wrong, it is a beautiful looking film that is instantly recognisable as a Park film, and he directs the hell out of the film (including some choices that are very audacious that I will talk about soon), but his films are usually so exquisitely designed that they almost expose the cinematic artifice in their creations. Purists or critics may complain that these films are “over-designed” but I absolutely love the look of his films and consider him to be one of the best visual stylists working in cinema today. “Decision to Leave” is still very stylised but is much more naturalistic compared to his previous films. Whether it was a conscious decision by Park to tone down his visuals this time, or it was the result of him coming off a television series (“The Little Drummer Girl” starring Florence Pugh) where his style was naturally pared back, or if it is due to this being the first film since 2003's “Oldboy” that he is not working with Chung Chung-hoon as his cinematographer, I do not know. This is more an observation rather than a criticism, because the film still looks fantastic.

As I said above, Park's direction is one of the highlights of “Decision to Leave” with him finding a number of different and interesting ways to relay information to the audience. My absolute favourite moments are during Hae-joon's surveillance of Seo-rae when he stakes out her house on a nightly basis. The way Park presents the information Hae-joon sees through his binoculars is just brilliant and I am not sure I've ever seen it done this way before. He starts normally with a shot of Hae-joon looking through the binoculars, and then cuts to images of him walking through Seo-rae's apartment, staring at things intently, looking for clues, whilst he obviously goes unnoticed by her (since he isn't really there). It was such an interesting way to do it, and I loved this choice, and he does a similar thing with the phone conversations between himself and Seo-rae, where they are shot in the same room together, as if they were having a face-to-face conversation. He also comes up with a lot of unusual point of view shots from such things as an urn, a smart phone, and even a dead man's eye which has an ant crawling over it. Like I said, Park directs the hell out of the film, but I feel he had to due to the lacklustre script he was working with. Some of the dialogue is incredibly benign and the story really lacks thrust; it kind of meanders along and rarely builds up momentum to make the film as exciting as it really should be. The fact that the film is overlong too doesn't help, as it sags in the middle while treading water for a bit.

In terms of acting, Chinese actress Tang Wei is outstanding as Seo-rae and you can never take your eyes off of her when she is onscreen. While she is no doubt very beautiful, she is such a dynamic actress that just makes you feel whatever her character is going through. Sadly, the same cannot be said for her male counterpart, as Park Hae-il gives a flat, almost lifeless performance as Hae-joon, and really is the biggest weakness of “Decision to Leave”. His character is meant to go through a range of emotions over the course of the film, as he has the largest arc, but he fails to convince throughout. He seemed to have a handle on the earlier, lighter scenes, but really struggled when his character was meant to be in the throes of depression, but all Park Hae-il could muster was putting on a stony sad face. This is where “Decision to Leave” really misses an actor like Choi Min-sik or Song Kang-ho (who starred in Park Chan-wook films “Oldboy” and “Thirst” respectively) in the lead role. Whilst those two actors are probably too old for this role, I mean more in terms of the calibre of actor.

For a romantic thriller to really work also, the two leads need to have fantastic chemistry, and the romance itself must have some heat. You need to feel that these characters love each other so much, and are hot for each other, that they will do anything to be with each other. Sadly the romance between Seo-rae and Hae-joon has no heat at all to it; they come across as a couple of nervous school kids on a first date rather than two adults so hot for each other that they will commit adultery to be together. The romance is almost chaste, which is not a compliment. Tang Wei does her best, but there is just no chemistry between her and Park Hae-il, which is a huge disappointment when you see just how fantastic her scenes are with Tony Leung in “Lust, Caution”. I am not expecting “Decision to Leave” to be as sexually explicit as that film, but please make me believe that there is at least some lust between them.

I know that this review has a very negative slant towards it, and you would be forgiven if you thought I actually hated “Decision to Leave”, but I really didn't. It is actually a very entertaining thriller, that has been superbly directed, but I was just expecting so much more, especially from Park Chan-wook, and because of that I seem to be harsher on him than I would other filmmakers. I thought the thriller and detective aspects worked really well, particularly the revelation late in the second half, but again even then there are some weird plot conveniences that really rub me the wrong way too. I have to question the bit where Seo-rae basically narrates all of her thoughts and records them on her smart-phone; who does this in real life?!?!? Yes, it works well for the end of the film, but it never rang true for me and left a slight sour taste in my mouth in what is a pretty good ending.

Overall, I have mixed feelings about “Decision to Leave”. It has been beautifully directed but both the script and lead male performance are seriously lacking. Tang Wei does her best, and the film is always entertaining when she is onscreen, but this is a bit of a disappointment from Park Chan-wook. Again, the film is very entertaining, and I really do look forward to watching it again, but when you pare it all back, it is essentially a rehash of “Vertigo”, and should've been much, much better than it turned out to be. To be fair, the audience I saw it with seemed to enjoy it more than me, so maybe I am overly harsh and I will respond to it more on a second viewing, but I so wanted to love this and expected to, so it was a bit of a shock when I found it to be only middling.

3 Stars.

HOLY SPIDER - MIFF 2022

The MIFF guide beautifully sums up “Holy Spider” like so: “Tehran-based journalist Rahimi travels to the Iranian holy city of Mashhad to cover the case of the so-called ‘Spider Killer’, who has been brutally strangling sex workers with their own hijabs. Battling misogynist microaggressions and apathetic police, she joins forces with rumpled local reporter Sharifi, who follows her into the Spider’s web. But she’s not prepared for the way that public sympathy tips in the Spider’s favour, portraying him as the hero he imagines himself to be: a devout Shiite Muslim, war veteran and mild-mannered family man purging the city of sexual corruption.”

Whilst “Holy Spider” is based on a real-life serial killer who operated in Iran, killing sixteen women between 2000-2001, the film itself does not originate from Iran. Director Ali Abbasi (who is originally from Iran) essentially announces this via his use of nudity, vulgar language and a graphic depiction of a sexual act, all in the opening few minutes. It is as if he is saying that if you are expecting the usual type of film from Iran, you are in for a shock, and if you cannot handle these opening scenes, perhaps it is best to leave right now. None of these moments would have got close to making it in a film if it was made in Iran, so I am sure that there would be many audience members shocked by these opening scenes. But is the graphic nature of the opening of “Holy Spider” justified or helpful in telling the film's story? I'm not so sure.

Being familiar with and liking Abbasi's previous film, the very odd romantic film “Border”, I was looking forward to checking out his follow up, “Holy Spider”. When I heard it was based on a real-life crime from Iran, my anticipation grew as I am a fan of cinema that explores the dark side of human nature. We were lucky enough to have lead actress Zar Amir-Ebrahimi introduce our MIFF screening and during her introduction she mentioned how passionate her and Abbasi were over “Holy Spider”. She said that while the film was graphic in a number of ways, Abbasi didn't want to gloss over just how horrible these crimes were and so, felt compelled to not hold back in depicting them. She understood that some audience members may be shocked, hurt or even angry by these scenes, and that these reactions were all reasonable. She continued by saying that it was Abbasi's intent to hold a mirror up to the misogyny that is so rampant in Iran today. Hearing this, I do believe that Abbasi's intentions are good, but my big problem with “Holy Spider” is that it seems to focus too much on the controversial elements he is condemning in an effort to shock rather than to illuminate. His handling of the material is far too sensationalist with the camera lingering on the violence and the nudity for far too long that it actually begins to feel vulgar. While he claims he wants viewers to see these women as human, the way he films the story, he seems more in tune with the killer's fetishes instead.

Zar Amir-Ebrahimi's central performance as reporter Rahimi is truly the highlight of the film, as she is magnificent throughout. She gives Rahimi a sassy, “takes-no-shit-from-anybody” attitude, who wont take no for an answer, which works as both her greatest strength and weakness. As I mentioned, Amir-Ebrahimi was present to introduce our screening, and the rapturous applause she received was something else; I had never seen anything like it before at MIFF, but the audience went nuts for her! It was a beautiful moment and you could tell how touched she was by it. Amazingly, she informed us that originally she was only on “Holy Spider” as its casting director, and that another actress had been cast in the role of Rahimi. When this actress dropped out at the last second, it sent the production scrambling looking for a replacement, when Abbasi convinced Amir-Ebrahimi to play Rahimi herself, and the rest as they say is history. She then went on to win the Best Actress award at this year's Cannes Film Festival for her portrayal of Rahimi in “Holy Spider”, and watching her in the role, not only is it well deserved, but you have no inkling that she came into that role at the eleventh hour; she just IS Rahimi. I should mention that Amir-Ebrahimi also informed us that while Rahimi is based on an actual reporter, it is her role in the film that is the most fictional part of “Holy Spider”.

I wasn't as impressed by Mehdi Bajestani's performance as Saeed (the spider killer), which I thought was very uneven. Some scenes he came across very natural and realistic, particularly the scenes with his family, but I think he struggled a little bit in the later scenes after Saeed is captured. In these moments, Saeed has something of a God-complex, but the way Bajestani plays it, he comes off more creepy than someone who feels superior to everyone else. He handles himself well in the murder scenes, but you have to wonder how it took Saeed so long to be captured, if he really was as clumsy and inefficient as he is in the film.

“Holy Spider” is at its strongest only after Saeed has finally been caught, and what happens after this is where I thought the film got really interesting. I was totally surprised by the reaction of the general public in regards to Saeed and his killing of sex workers. It was the complete opposite reaction than what I expected, as he was predominately lauded by the public for his actions, ridding the streets of what he deemed unclean women. I found it particularly interesting how all of this praise and attention affected Saeed's teenage son, who initially looks embarrassed and ashamed of his father when going out to buy groceries, but that shame quickly turns to pride when he is given free fruit and vegetables from sellers who believe in what his father has done. I found this element absolutely terrifying, that the community not only felt that these women's lives had no worth at all, and that instead of condemning a man who has killed sixteen women, they actually champion him and band together to try and see him be released. Rahimi herself sees the immediate danger in this situation and, knowing the way the law works in her country, is terrified that Saeed will be released. There is a element in Iranian law that is strange to us Westerners in that a criminal can asked a victim's family for forgiveness, and then pay that family what is essentially “blood money”, that would then see them released from prison for their crime. Being that most of these women were from poor families, Rahimi is sure that they will forgive this man just to receive the money that they all need, and Saeed would be freed. She also isn't convinced that the police or community leaders just wont find a way to release Saeed, as she has a paranoid belief that the police may be in on it as the “spider killer” has helped them in cleaning up the streets of Mashhad, or that Saeed may have even being performing a fatwa, issued from one of the local religious groups.

The positive reinforcement from the public in regards to his crimes, also affects Saeed in a number of ways. Gone is the mild-mannered builder, and instead in his place is a man who believes that he really is an instrument of God, and someone far superior than everyone else. Before he was caught, he claimed he was murdering these women in an attempt to cleanse the Holy city in the name of Allah. Personally I feel this was all talk, because he then loved checking the following day's newspapers to read about his murderous exploits, even getting angry when one murder is not reported on. There is also a telling piece of dialogue when he is talking to his friend, where he claims he is embarrassed that he went through the entire war and was unaffected; he wasn't injured, nor died a martyr, nor was any member of his family. He believes he is more than just a builder and he wants to show the world just this. So you can see, that these murders are clearly for his own benefit, and then when he gets the notoriety that he has so long wanted, he actually starts to believe his own bullshit, thinking he truly is a vessel for God. This arrogance is what ultimately leads to his downfall, as when he is told by his lawyers that they can get him off on terms of insanity, he initially agrees to it, but when he has his moment to plead this, he uses the platform to say there was no way he was insane, and that he was proud of what he did because it was a Holy gesture. Even when he is sentenced to 14 life sentences and the death penalty, Saeed is convinced the hand of God will step in and set him free, and you can see that he now has truly lost his mind. The saddest aspect of this though is the way his son has now been corrupted by the praise and fame of his father and considers continuing his work.

Overall, I have to say that I was ultimately disappointed by Ali Abbasi's “Holy Spider”. Whilst I believe he truly had his heart in the right place in trying to illuminate the misogyny that is so rampant in Iranian culture, I just think he goes about it in the wrong way, by focusing too heavily on the misogynistic elements that he is trying to critique. It is almost like he is trying to have his cake and eat it too. The film is anchored by a fantastic lead performance though from Zar Amir-Ebrahimi who gives it an urgency and power. It is definitely a well made film, nicely shot with a powerful score, and it does have some very interesting elements to it, especially after Saeed has been caught, but I just found “Holy Spider” to be too uneven, and at times very crude and vulgar.

2.5 Stars. 

EARWIG - MIFF 2022

Somewhere in Europe, mid-20th century. Albert is employed to look after Mia, a girl with teeth of ice. Mia never leaves their apartment, where the shutters are always closed. The telephone rings regularly and the Master enquires after Mia's well being. Until the day Albert is instructed that he must prepare the child to leave.

When the MIFF program was finally announced, the first title I checked for it's inclusion was Lucile Hadzihalilovic's “Earwig”. Thankfully I was not disappointed, instead I was pleasantly surprised as not only was “Earwig” included in this years MIFF, but they were also doing a complete retrospective of Hadzihalilovic's entire career so far. As you can no doubt tell from the plot synopsis above, “Earwig” is a very strange film and one that has niche audience appeal, but it ticks all the boxes of what I love in cinema and ever since I read of the girl with teeth of ice about a year ago, I have been dying to see it.

The first thing you notice about “Earwig” is how quiet a film it is and just how impeccably designed it has been. It is a details-oriented world, both in terms of look and in plot. Hadzihalilovic goes to great lengths to show the daily routine of Albert and Mia, the young girl he is assigned to look after. We see every step, in glorious detail, of him changing her teeth of ice, from removing the contraption from her mouth, filling the mould with her saliva, closing it up and freezing it in preparation for the next change. Albert then takes the already prepared and frozen ice teeth out of the mould and inserts it into Mia's mouth. Hadzihalilovic presents it almost in real time, but like the rest of the film, I found it entirely mesmerising. The two of them clearly live day to day in a highly structured routine, which you can tell benefits Albert more than the girl. This is proven when he receives a mysterious phone call telling him to ready the girl for the outside world. Suddenly his carefully constructed world falls apart, as the routine is now broken, and Albert struggles to function properly without it. He resists the change, and things really start to go downhill once Mia steps outside for the first time.

I mentioned that it is a quiet film and this is due to the fact that there is very limited dialogue in “Earwig” with the first spoken word not arriving until at least half an hour into the film. Hadzihalilovic lets her amazing visuals tell her modest and very strange story, coupled with an atmospheric sound design representing the hidden outside world via the sounds of distant trains, animals and the changing weather. The film has been beautifully shot by cinematographer Jonathan Ricquebourg in low light which gives “Earwig” a painterly look to it, which also helps define the period setting. Earthy colours such as yellow, browns, and de-saturated reds and greens are used to wonderful effect. In regards to the visual style, I was regularly reminded of David Cronenberg's “Spider” and particularly Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Marc Caro's “Delicatessen” (I got a nice surprise at the end of the film when I saw that Marc Caro was credited with designing Mia's very strange and involving teeth apparatus). Even if people dislike “Earwig”, they would still have to admit that it is a gorgeous looking film that has been impeccably designed (take a bow, Julien Dubourg and Julia Irribarria, the production designer and art directors of the film).

Lucile Hadzihalilovic is in total control of her film “Earwig” and her direction is flawless. I feel it is necessary to mention this because “Earwig” is a film that leaves you with more questions than answers and most people will leave the cinema at least a little confused. A lazy critique would be to think that Hadzihalilovic has no idea what she is doing but actually, the opposite is true. Her control of both the film's tone and pacing are expert and I never once doubted that what was onscreen was exactly what Hadzihalilovic wanted to show. Every frame is composed in such a way that it couldn't not be deliberate, as is the way the actors (slowly) move throughout that frame in unison with the pace of the film itself. Hadzihalilovic has created a stunningly beautiful fairy tale world filled with a thick, tactile atmosphere, while also employing the use of dream logic which gives “Earwig” the feeling of a beautiful nightmare. Just whose nightmare it is though is the big question.

As I said above, “Earwig” is a film that has a niche audience appeal (and as such I was not surprised by the limited numbers at my screening), and it is sure to be very divisive amongst viewers, which if I am being honest, I would expect most to be on the negative side. Audiences today prefer to have everything spoon fed to them, so they understand everything going on, but Lucile Hadzihalilovic isn't going to give audiences that with “Earwig”. It is a puzzle film in that she will leave clues and hints of ideas throughout the film, but she expects the audience to work a little to get meaning out of this elliptical story. I understand that most audience members react negatively towards this approach, and I did feel just that from most of the audience when my session of the film ended, but personally I love this stuff. I love when I know that the director has a definite idea about what has just happened, but has left it up to me to find the clues and work it all out. This is why I love David Lynch so much, and particularly his films “Lost Highway” and “Mulholland Dr.”. Speaking of Lynch, I believe that there is a moment in “Earwig” that is a direct homage to a scene from “Lost Highway”; the very famous scene where Bill Pullman's character meets a mystery man at a party he is attending, who tells him that he is currently at his house, even though he is standing right in front of him. It is a very surreal moment, and Lucile Hadzihalilovic has repeated this scene in “Earwig” with Albert meeting his own mystery man at a tavern he is drinking in. The man questions Albert about his true identity, and asks if he has every dreamed of being someone else. Even stylistically Hadzihalilovic uses the same techniques as in the scene of “Lost Highway”, by drowning out all of the noise from within the tavern so we only hear these two men's voices and nothing else. This gives the sense that the conversation is happening outside of reality. The scene ends in a short, brutal act of violence that sees an unsuspecting barmaid injured; the significance of this barmaid increases as the film goes along and may be a key part of the puzzle being explained.

So what is it all about? What does it all mean? I will be honest and say that I am not quite sure, but Hadzihalilovic has definitely left clues for us to work it out. In a pre-recorded introduction played to us before the film, Hadzihalilovic let us know that Brian Catling, the author of the book that the film is based on, refused to explain its meaning, only saying that it came to him via a dream he had one night. Hadzihalilovic didn't want to explain anything either and suggested that we let the film just wash over us. However, there are definite clues there. A painting of a large mansion seems to hold some significance as a number of characters are seen staring intently at it, and it seems to trigger memories of the past within Albert, as do the reflections in his crystal glassware. Memories of a wife he may or may not have had enter into his subconscious from time to time, which appear to also be a key to the mystery. The time and location where “Earwig” takes place is never revealed, but the date seen on a birth certificate appears to indicate that the story takes place post World War II, somewhere in Europe. As such I kept feeling that a form of “war trauma” in regards to Albert may have some significance in this story. As I said from the beginning, this is a film that leaves you with more questions than answers: just who is Albert? Is Mia actually his daughter or is he really just her guardian? Why and how are Albert and Celeste (the barmaid) connected symbiotically? Are they different sides of the same person? Is Albert suffering from trauma after the war? Did Albert have a wife, and if so, did she die in childbirth? I am not sure of the answer to these questions, but I adore the mystery of it all.

Overall, “Earwig” lived up to my very high expectations and I loved every second of it. In saying that though, it is a film that I do not think I would recommend to anyone else, simply because it is such an enigmatic film and is definitely not for everyone. Lucile Hadzihalilovic has created a beautifully dark fairy tale combined with an atmosphere thick with Gothic vibes. Whilst I was initially attracted to “Earwig” due to the unusual image of a girl with ice teeth, I ended up being blown away by the stunning photography, exquisite production design and beautiful mystery of the finished film. It is a very odd film, but I fell in love with all of this oddness and for its originality; its a stunningly produced film.

4.5 Stars. 

THE STRANGER - MIFF 2022

The imdb describes the plot like so,: “A friendship forms between two strangers. For Henry Teague, worn down by a lifetime of physical labour, this is a dream come true. His new friend Mark becomes his saviour and ally. However, neither is who they appear to be, each carry secrets that threaten to ruin them and in the background, one of the nation's largest police operations is closing in.”

Right off the top, I should address the controversy surrounding “The Stranger”which happened a few weeks prior to MIFF starting. The reason for the controversy is, for those unaware, because “The Stranger” is based on the real life kidnapping and murder of 13 year old Daniel Morcombe back in 2003. When word got out in the press about this, Daniel's parents blasted the film and anyone involved with it, saying they were sick people to want to benefit from someone else's pain. Whilst you certainly feel for the parents and their reaction is justified, the criticism that followed around the film is totally unwarranted. While it is true that the film is based on that incident, the main aim of the film is to highlight the aftermath and the years-long investigation and undercover operation that the police conducted in order to obtain an arrest of the killer. It has nothing to do with the actual kidnapping or murder, and is entirely about the immense work the police did and the huge task of collaborating between multiple states, all in an attempt to get their man. The real life victim and his parents have been respected throughout with the murder never being presented onscreen and with all names being changed in the film.

Before even seeing a frame of Thomas M. Wright's “The Stranger”, I was aware of its supposed pedigree. Numerous ramblings and praise about the film I had heard whilst waiting between MIFF sessions. From the half-sentences and part-conversations I heard, it seemed almost everyone loved “The Stranger” and that it was one of the buzz-films of this year's MIFF. Word of mouth was so strong that by the time my session came around of “The Stranger” I was quietly anticipating and expecting it to impress.

However right from the opening frame, I seemed to have a complete negative reaction to the film. I didn't like the dark, smeary, muddy cinematography which also had a cheap digital appearance to it in some shots, and I struggled with Sean Harris's mumbling line delivery which at times bordered on incomprehensible. Coupled with that, I also found the early scenes involving the relocation of a certain criminal confusing and all a bit silly. I was stunned that I was hating “The Stranger” when all I had heard about the film was positive. And then it happened; I started to be drawn into the dark world onscreen, and before long I was mesmerised by the drama as well as the phenomenal performances. Suddenly things that I hated about the film, made sense. Yes, the visuals are dark and dreary but this mirrors the dangerous world being presented. And in regards to Harris's mumbling, I think both my ear trained to it causing me to understand him a lot better, and I also came to terms with the fact that his character of Henry would very probably speak exactly like this, and would not speak with perfect enunciation.

While my own prejudices initially seemed to demand it, writer / director Thomas M. Wright understood that the story he was telling was strong and powerful enough to not need to fall back on cinematic excess or over-stylisation. All he needed to do was to present the story as honest and realistically as possible, coupled with casting the right actors who could disappear into their roles and finally, creating the right amount of dramatic tension and atmosphere onscreen, and Wright does all of these things magnificently. The undercover world of “The Stranger” is such a dark and violent world that it would be terrifying for the average human, but which is daily life to these brave cops. Wright does an amazing job of recreating this world and making us feel the violence of it, without showing a single violent act onscreen. To me the greatest person at creating atmosphere in cinema is David Lynch, so it is high praise indeed when I say that there were moments that were downright Lynchian. Two brief moments in particular stand out, with the first being when Mark is at home with his young son, and due to his fear and paranoia of his work following him home, he thinks he sees the outline of Henry standing by his curtains, barely visible. The second moment takes place in a car, and ultimately turns out to be a dream, but it is absolutely chilling. Wright creates and controls atmosphere in a very similar manner to Lynch too, which is via his sound design. The other thing that Wright had to get right was to make the audience feel the progression of the case, and how the stakes rise the closer they get to an arrest. This is a very dangerous man they are trying to trap, and who they know has done some horrific things in the past, and we need to feel the weight of what making a mistake would mean in this world.

I mentioned that the casting also had to be perfect and let me just say that Joel Edgerton is outstanding in the role of Mark, the undercover cop assigned to get close with Henry. I have thought this for awhile now but at this moment, Joel Edgerton is Australia's greatest working actor, and the way he just disappears in this role only strengthens my belief. It is such a multifaceted role because his character is also acting the majority of the time and his life and the case relies on him being very believable when in the field. So we see Mark as a criminal befriending Henry, hearing more and more about his life and previous crimes, and pretending not to be affected by any of it, when in reality he is disgusted by it all. We then see a different side of Mark when he is amongst his peers on the force, when he can finally show the disgust and rage he feels for the man he has been forced to befriend, and then we see him at home “relaxing” with his son, and battling his mental demons from the case in private. It is a fantastic showcase for an actor, and I never once doubted the reality of Edgerton's performance for a second. He is just phenomenal! Sean Harris is just as good in his role of Henry too. He comes across as a dangerous, yet pathetic character, looking for a friend more than anything else. Harris presents Henry as a very nervous, and lonely sort of guy, socially inept, and as some one who would do anything for his friend without thinking of the consequences. We never see what he is like when he is alone, only when he is with Mark, but he never seems in total control, like he could go off at any second, either by fleeing or striking out violently. He is also someone who doesn't trust easily (understandable since he has so many secrets to hide), but at the same time he almost appears complicit in his own manipulation by the police in their attempts to get him to confess. Make no mistake though, through Harris's performance, you know that despite how pathetic and cowardly he comes across at times, Mark is a very dangerous man.

The thing that “The Stranger” really opened my eyes to was just how much work actually goes in to not only catching a killer, but to do so with enough physical evidence to ensure a conviction. In the film, the complete operation runs eight years and involves the co-operation of many police divisions across multiple states. Wright constructs his film in a manner where we watch both the undercover operation as well as normal officers, working to find a connection between Henry and the crime and trying to disprove his alibi, concurrently, which causes us to believe that it is all happening at the same time. Then Wright reveals his magic trick that what we are watching is not linear, and suddenly everything clicks into place and the brilliance of the film is revealed. It then highlights just how complex the operation truly is, and it even shows that scene from the beginning that I hated in a different light, which now makes complete sense.

“The Stranger” is such a success at exposing the reality of these undercover operations and exactly what these brave men and women really go through. Scenes of police pumping themselves up, rehearsing lines and key information before going into the field with Henry and having to act as natural as possible so as not to arouse suspicion. The best example of this is before the meeting they know they will get Henry to confess. The cop with Mark fumbles his lines multiple times and even drops a glass, due to the nerves of knowing that this is the moment they have worked eight years for, and if he messes it up it is all for nothing. The other aspect that really shocked me about undercover life, was watching Mark then having to go home on a nightly basis to his son, and attempt to lead a normal life. Edgerton does an excellent job of portraying Mark as a caring and loving father, but constantly on edge and fears the consequences of his work coming home with him. This is perfectly encapsulated in the terrifying scene when Mark plays an innocent game of hide and seek with his son. The mental toll on the men and women of the police force must be intense and it is no surprise that so many struggle with it.

Overall, “The Stranger” is just a sensational movie, and probably the best I have seen this year. It is not an easy watch, and it stays with you long after the credits have finished, but it is a powerful and realistic examination of just what the police have to go through at times in order to obtain an arrest of a dangerous criminal. Filled with fantastic performances, and impressive sound design, “The Stranger” is definitely a film that you feel, and I cannot recommend it enough; it is a phenomenal achievement.

4.5 Stars.

PETER VON KANT - MIFF 2022

The MIFF guide describes “Peter Von Kant” as so, : “In Cologne, 1972, petulant Peter lives ostentatiously in his ornate apartment, accompanied by his obsequious personal assistant, Karl. Recently heartbroken, the filmmaker has taken wantonly to the bottle. But his passions are soon diverted towards alluring young acting prodigy Amir, who in turn sees the older director as a stepping stone to stardom. And so the unlikely pair begin a lopsided relationship, under Karl’s ever-watchful eye.”

As I am sure most people will pick up on from the title, “Peter Von Kant” is French director Francois Ozon's remake and loving homage to Rainer Werner Fassbinder's 1972 classic “The Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant”. What Ozon does with the material though is where the genius lies in this version, as not only has he reversed the genders of the characters within, he also tells the story via the prism of Fassbinder's real life doomed relationship with El Hedi Ben Salem. The character of Peter Von Kant is very obviously the avatar of Rainer Werner Fassbinder himself. This ultimately forces a number of other changes immediately onto the film, because we are now dealing with a guy who is famous in the world of movie-making as opposed to a fashion designer in the original, with the object of desire for Van Kant this time being an aspiring young actor, rather than a young model. These changes however do not alter the themes of the film though, and I must say that I really liked that Ozon did not let himself become a slave to the original classic, and rather made something personal with his remake of the material.

When the film started though, I must admit that I actually thought I was going to hate it. Like the original film it is based, “Peter Von Kant” is highly stylised and incredibly campy. As such, initially the whole style of the film and the performances in particular really rubbed me the wrong way. However the more I settled into the film, and as the drama builds, I found myself more involved and invested with it, that by the end I really liked the film a lot. In very simple terms, “Peter Von Kant” is about a man on the verge of a nervous breakdown, after the end of a quite intense romantic relationship. As I mentioned, at the start of the film, it is done in a very campy way but I found that as the movie progresses and Peter starts to unravel, the performances, particularly Denis Menochet as Van Kant, start to become more and more naturalistic to the point that by the end we have almost reached realism. Menochet has a wonderful moment during the darkest point of his breakdown, screaming at his loved ones, hurting them with vile words before he collapses in exhaustion. This is a man in serious mental anguish and pain, and Menochet makes you feel it all. So after my initial misgivings, I came around and ended up thinking Denis Menochet delivered a fantastic performance as the very flawed Peter Von Kant. As Isabelle Adjani's character says to him “Brilliant director. Shit person.”, which Fassbinder himself has been described like at times as well.

The whole cast though is excellent with Khalil Gharbia immediately impressing as Amir, Peter's love interest. At the beginning of the film he is wide eyed and in awe of Peter, dying to live in his world, but later on after time has passed and the two have been together for a while, you can see the change in the man. He is now very cold towards Peter, and has no shame in showing that he cares little for him other than his money, simply because he knows Peter adores him and will do anything for him. Amir also gets off on causing mental anguish upon his lover; you can see he enjoys watching the man suffer. Gharbia is just fantastic in portraying both incarnations of this character and I particularly liked a late, silent moment he has at the end, when he realises his spell over Peter is broken, and you sense sadness and even a little regret in him. Isabelle Adjani is delightful as an actress, past her prime, and always sniffing around for a good part in Von Kant's latest films. Adjani gives her character Sidonie an air of desperation to her, and an insincerity that isn't exactly hidden. Stefan Crepon is absolutely hilarious as Peter's regularly abused personal assistant Karl, who it is also hinted at, may have been Peter's lover before Amir entered the picture. Like the assistant Marlene in the original film, even though Karl is one of the main characters, he has no lines in the film, but Crepon makes him so memorable thanks to his hilarious facial reactions to Von Kant's and Amir's antics. I also found the constant demanding from Von Kant, “Karl!”, to be very funny, getting him to do the most benign tasks. The inclusion of Fassbinder muse Hanna Schygulla in the cast is the most pleasing though as she played the love interest, Karin, in the 1972 original. This time around she plays Peter's mother and unsurprisingly she is fantastic in the role. This is actually Schygulla's second consecutive appearance in an Ozon film, following her small but important role in his previous and brilliant euthanasia film “Everything Went Fine”.

One thing that the original film is famous for is that it takes place entirely in Petra's apartment; we never go outside or leave the characters from this setting. Ozon stays relatively true to this although there are a couple of brief scenes towards the end that do take place outside, and there are a few shots from outside looking into the apartment too. Predominately though, this is a single location film and as such, to keep the audience from getting bored, the production design is very bright and pops with colour. Bright blues and reds feature heavily and early on Van Kant's wall is adorned by a giant poster featuring Sidonie's glamorous visage. This portrait is later replaced with multiple posters of Amir, showing off his handsome body and boyish facial features, as Peter's love turns to obsession. Like the rest of the film, the production design is full of camp with the apartment filled with garish ornaments and trinkets that seem to serve no purpose other than to highlight the wealth and (lack of) taste of their owners.

Before seeing “Peter Von Kant” I was curious as to just how faithful to Fassbinder's original script Francois Ozon was going to be, especially since there is a forty minute difference in the running times of both films. To be honest, it has been a number of years since my last viewing of “The Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant”, so my memory of it now is hardly reliable, but from that untrustworthy memory I felt that Ozon was quite faithful to the original text. Obviously due to the changes he made to the character's gender and professions, the inflections are slightly different, but overall the questions he tackles are mostly the same. While the actor / director power dynamics are different to that of the fashion designer / model, when it comes to matters of the heart, Ozon remains faithful using a lot of the original dialogue in the process. Both films look at what it is to love, the differences between love, lust, obsession and possession, whether there can be true love without hurt or pain, and whether love is present in obsession; it is all fantastic stuff and very human.

Before I end this review, I just want to make mention of how disappointed I was with the turn out for my screening of “Peter Von Kant”. I understand that due to covid, audience numbers are down across the board, but I was still shocked at how poorly attended my session was. This is a brand new film from an internationally well known and liked director, remaking a very famous film by a cinematic legend. Any other year I would expect a sell out session, but it didn't come close to that which I found very sad.

Overall, after a bumpy start, I ended up really liking Francois Ozon's “Peter Von Kant”. Whilst I would call myself a fan of Ozon, he is a director that I find inconsistent, although after his excellent previous film, “Everything Went Fine” and now “Peter Von Kant”, I think he is currently right on top of his game. Ozon clearly has a deep respect and affinity for Rainer Werner Fassbinder, as this is actually his second Fassbinder film (his third film, “Water Drops on Burning Rocks”, was based on one of Fassbinder's plays). If pressed, I would say that Fassbinder's “The Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant” is the richer film of the two, but Ozon has created a nice homage with his version which by the end morphs into film that feels more from Ozon's canon. What starts as a broad and campy affair ultimately becomes a devastating portrait of a man in serious pain after a love affair gone bad, before coming to the realisation that he may never have been in love in the first place. I liked it a lot.

3.5 Stars.

SISSY - MIFF 2022

 

As per the MIFF guide: “As children, Cecilia and Emma swore they’d be friends forever – until third wheel Alex entered the picture to full frenemy effect, provoking a falling-out that has tainted the intervening years. Now a popular Instagram wellness influencer, Cecilia reconnects with Emma, who has invited her to a hen’s weekend at a secluded country house … which happens to belong to Alex. As passive-aggressiveness morphs into outright aggression, the weekend spirals into algorithm-breaking Insta-carnage.”

It is always great when I get to champion a brand new and excellent Australian horror film, and “Sissy” is exactly that. Although to simply brand the film as “just” a horror flick, would be doing it a great disservice as it touches the fringes of many genres and goes through many moods throughout the entirety of its running time. “Sissy” at various times could be classified as a drama, comedy, or even (a disturbing) love story, and it also goes about throwing in a little bit of important and very now social commentary. Amazingly, the whole film flows beautifully and this constant change in tones never feels jarring, but the best thing about “Sissy” is that it is so damn entertaining! This film is a blast from start to finish and I dare anyone to not have a good time with it. It is fun, fun, FUN!!

The film begins in light drama / comedy mode, as we are witness to our titular character recording a video in celebration of reaching her 200,000^th follower. Yes, Sissy (sorry, Cecilia) is an influencer “specialising” in providing positive mental health vibes. She is adored by her followers, but her own mental health seems predicated on the “likes”and comments she receives from these total strangers. Sissy presents herself online as someone who is very happy and content with their life, who is at peace with who she is and as someone who has positive mental health. However her carefully manicured facade slowly starts to crack after a chance run in with her childhood best friend Emma (played by co-director Hannah Barlow). Further cracks appear when Sissy accepts an invitation to attend Emma's hen's weekend, which she soon finds out is also being attended by Alex, the girl who bullied Sissy as a child relentlessly. After feeling isolated and alone during the weekend, coupled with a few unfortunate incidents (like being cancelled by the rest of the group), Sissy's mental state totally shatters and she goes full psycho. Yes, Sissy is an influencer who is also a mentally unstable psychotic! It goes without saying that by this stage of the film, the fun and comedy is gone, and we are in full-on horror territory, as Sissy goes about offing her tormentors one by one.

The social commentary aspect of the film may be obvious now, but it is highlighting the potential dangers of influencers and those who worship them. The simple reason is that you never really know (despite you thinking you know them intimately) who the person is behind the face, or whether or not they are even qualified to be talking about the subject they are preaching about. There is also a real possibility that an influencer could abuse their platform and followers for their own personal gain, and not worrying about who they hurt along the way even though they are doing it under the guise of caring and understanding. At the end of the day, the only reason these people have this platform is because of “us” and something so arbitrary as giving them “likes”. Anyway, I love a horror film when it adds a layer of social commentary to go along with the blood and guts, and don't worry, none of it is in your face or heavy handed, so if you do not notice it, you can still enjoy the gore!

Speaking of gore, I was not prepared for just how bloody and gory “Sissy”ended up being. Particularly after the candy coloured fun of the first half, I was pleasantly shocked at the bloody mayhem that was to follow. This film is seriously gory, and thankfully, all of the inventive and blood splattered deaths have been done via practical effects. These are 1980's quality gore effects and they are glorious! There is so much head and face trauma on show, not to mention scalpings, broken bones, injuries via garden tools, and so much more. It's a gorehound's delight and yep, I loved every bit of it.

As I have mentioned in multiple reviews, horror only truly works well when you care about the characters onscreen and directors Hannah Barlow and Kane Senes have done an excellent job of putting together a great and memorable ensemble cast. I also do not think they have to worry about any complaints over inclusion as the cast and characters are a diverse lot being of all types of race, sexuality and even disability, which is a nice touch. Hannah Barlow who plays Emma is the heart and humanity within the film and she is excellent. She genuinely cares about Sissy (sorry, Cecilia) and never speaks bad to her or about her behind her back, and she even puts Alex in her place, reminding her that she is hardly a victim being that she bullied Sissy constantly when they were kids. It is a fun performance from Barlow, full of life and love, but at the same time it is also a thoughtful performance too, as we regularly see that Emma thinks how her actions could affect someone else. Barlow also does a great job of conveying genuine worry for Sissy when she can sense all is not right for her. The rest of the characters are less developed but importantly all of the actors chosen to play these roles do a great job of making each one memorable in limited screen time. They also have fantastic chemistry together as a group making it very believable that they have been friends for a very long time. Pissy little comments and the reactions to these comments are very real and ring true of people who have known each other for so long. I must make special mention though of Shaun Martindale, who in his only two scenes becomes the film's scene-stealer, playing the local cop. His reactions are just priceless.

While she has a fantastic ensemble around her, lets face it, the movie belongs to Sissy (sorry, Cecilia) herself. Aisha Dee just owns this role and is totally adorable, plus the camera just loves her! In making “Sissy”, writer / directors Hannah Barlow and Kane Senes had the difficult job of getting the audience to love and care for Sissy but then also stay invested with her when she becomes the villain of the film. For the film to work, they still need the audience rooting for Sissy even when she is brutally killing people; we must want her to succeed. And speak of success, they hit gold in the casting of Aisha Dee, as she delivers all of this in spades; there is no way you can not love this girl! As I said, she is so cute and adorable in the opening scenes, so bubbly and full of life, and yet Dee does an fantastic job of giving the feeling that maybe Sissy doesn't believe she is truly worthy of any of this. Dee is then excellent at exposing her character's vulnerability and anxieties when things start to go bad, and then she gets the tone spot on when she becomes the murderous psychotic of the film. I love how she is so apologetic when she kills someone, almost like each death is an “oopsie” moment for her. I just love the character of Sissy so much. She's cute, adorable, funny, sweet, scary, manipulative and downright chilling – she's the whole package. From a very shallow point of view, I also love her frizzy hair, and that smile! Oh my god, she has the cutest smile ever!!! How can you NOT love this character???

Like the film itself, Kenneth Lampl's score regularly changes tones and musical styles ranging from over the top Disney-like happy tunes, to suspenseful Hitchcockian cues, to flat out horror music. The genius of the score though is that you do not always hear the type of music you may be expecting to hear for a given moment. There are times when the music actually plays against the images onscreen. The reason for this is for a lot of the time (not always though), the music represents Sissy's state of mind, so while she may be committing the most brutal murder, to her this is a happy moment as she is offing one of her tormentors, so the music is much lighter than you would expect. This was a brave stylistic choice, but it is yet another thing that works so well in this extremely fun movie.

Overall, I just had a ball with “Sissy”; it is entertainment to the max! Hannah Barlow and Kane Senes have done a wonderful job of balancing the tone and pace of the film, whilst also infusing it with some subtle social commentary. I appreciated them looking at the damage bullying can inflict even decades on, while highlighting the dangers of this recent influencer fad. They clearly have had a fun time sending up this recent phenomenon too. Thankfully none of this is in your face or hammered home, its more like an added extra; the whole point of “Sissy” is to sit back and have fun with it! It starts out light and fluffy before it builds to a dark, bloody and satisfying (if a little predictable) conclusion. I had such a good time with “Sissy” and I doubt that I will see another film as fun as it as this year's MIFF. I hope it is a big hit when it releases to the general public here in Australia later in the year, as it is a film that works so well with a massive crowd, and because it certainly deserves it. I will be doing my bit in getting the word out about how great and entertaining “Sissy” is.

3.5 Stars.