STOKER

My second most anticipated film of 2013, “Stoker” is a coming of age tale packed with serious bite.  The main reason for my anticipation is the fact that this is Park Chan-Wook’s latest directorial outing, which also happens to be his first Hollywood production after a string of amazing films from his homeland of South Korea, such as “Oldboy”, “Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance” and “Thirst”.  As always, when Hollywood producers lure great foreign directors, the biggest worry is whether or not they will be allowed to bring their own sense of style with them or will they be forced to conform within Hollywood’s conventions thus negating everything that made them special in the first place.  A perfect recent example of this is from Park Chan-Wook’s fellow countryman, Kim Jee-Woon and his experiences making the Arnold Schwarzenegger- starrer “The Last Stand”.  While that film turned out to be entertaining in its own right, anyone familiar with Kim Jee-Woon’s previous work would be easily able to recognize that the director’s influence was seriously watered down.  Would Park Chan-Wook suffer the same fate with “Stoker”?  Early trailers indicated that this was not the case at all, but how did the film stack up viewed as a whole?

On the day of her eighteenth birthday, India Stoker’s life is turned upside down when her beloved father is killed in an automobile accident.  Her life is further disrupted at her father’s wake when she is introduced to a man, who before that day, she never knew existed; her Uncle Charlie.  A full time traveler of the world, Charlie has returned home to lay his elder brother to rest and bring comfort in this time of need to the family he barely knows.  Being a time in India’s life that she really needs the guidance of her father, Charlie takes over that role, but as he becomes more and more relaxed in these unfamiliar surroundings, his true nature starts to come to the fore.  His focus and attention on his young niece becomes increasingly intense, to the point that Charlie’s true motivations are questioned, as well as whether or not he is even the person he claims to be.

While I do not think that “Stoker” is as bold or as memorable as the films he made in South Korea, Park Chan-Wook’s latest is definitely a success.  Admittedly the opening few minutes of “Stoker” are a little clunky and clumsy, but once Charlie enters the film in earnest, things settle down and everything starts to flow beautifully until we reach the disturbing finale.  Thankfully, “Stoker” is instantly recognizable as being the work from its talented director; there is nothing watered down here about his vision.  Park Chan-Wook’s bold visual style remains intact, which is largely due to the fact that he was able to bring his regular cinematographer, Chung Chung-Hoon, with him on his journey to Hollywood.  The two have an amazing chemistry together and have created yet another masterpiece of visual delights.  Almost every frame of this film is a thing of beauty with camera movements and compositions being akin to a work of art.  I loved the fact that even though the story is pretty dark in tone (and quite perverted too), the visuals were anything but.  Everything is well lit and easy to see what is going on.  Once again I felt an influence from “Valerie And Her Week Of Wonders” (another brilliant coming of age film) in the visuals of this film, that I am now certain that Park Chan-Wook is a massive fan of this film.  Another thing that I loved is the fact that Park used a lot of symbols in the film without shoving them in your face.  Things such as India’s shoes symbolizing her growing up (culminating in the high heels she receives at the end of the film), to the fact that Park even gave the characters of Charlie and India animal totems, with Charlie being the fly and India, the spider.  These are things that if you do not notice while watching the film mean little, but give the film an extra depth when you become aware of them.

On the acting front, Park has been blessed with three generations of Australian actresses playing the main female roles, and all of them are outstanding.  Nicole Kidman is great as Evelyn Stoker, India’s mother, and she plays her with a hint of desperation and sadness all at once.  She is definitely a woman looking to be loved, and hurt by the fact that her daughter shows her little of it (India is the definition of a “daddy’s girl”).  There is a fragility and frankly, a patheticness to Evelyn that Kidman just nails so perfectly.  While she only has a handful of scenes, Jacki Weaver almost steals the film with her portrayal of “Auntie” Gwendolyn Stoker.  She is the one character who seems to know the truth about Charlie and because of this you can feel her nervous energy whenever she is around him.  I really was so impressed by Weaver’s performance here; she just brings a much needed level of reality to this story, and gives the film its weight as through her character we suddenly come to understand just how serious and dangerous the situation could soon become with Charlie.  Of the three Aussies on display though, it is lead actress Mia Wasikowska’s turn as India Stoker that most impresses.  I have been a fan of hers from day one, but this is my favourite portrayal from her yet.  She brings an uneasiness to India; you can feel both her innocence and her awkwardness at being an outsider.  India is someone who just doesn’t fit in with a crowd and Wasikowska portrays this brilliantly.  She also is able to imbue her performance with the subtle darkness needed so when India comes of age and embraces her true nature, it does not feel forced at all.  

The role of Uncle Charlie is played by British actor Matthew Goode, who does an admirable job with the role.  He is smarmy and charming in equal measure, but there is also a feeling that this is a man that could explode into great violence at any given moment.  What I did like about Goode’s performance is the fact that he often portrays Charlie as a man who has never really grown up.  He is almost like a kid in some scenes, particularly with some of the goofy facial expressions he displays and the way he reacts when he doesn’t get his own way; almost as if he is throwing a tantrum.  A good example of this is the flashback between Charlie and Richard (India’s father) in the car.  It is just a touch of brilliance that in a film that is essentially about growing up, and his character is helping India to grow up and discover who she really is, that Charlie himself has never grown up.

One thing that I want to mention is both the use of sound and music in “Stoker” which is extraordinary.  Park Chan-Wook uses the soundscape brilliantly to contribute to the uneasy atmosphere of the film particularly by drowning out certain sounds and enhancing others.  A great example is the use of the metronome in a scene midway through the film.  Not only does it give the scene a beat or rhythm, it ratchets up the tension considerably.  In regards to music, I think Clint Mansell’s score is just beautiful and thankfully never overused.  It just enters the picture when needed to highlight certain moments rather than bluntly bashing us on the head and telling us how to feel.  The other musical piece of note, is Phillip Glass’s piano duet that India and Charlie play together which is just magical and the highlight of the film.

So are there any faults to the film?  Well, that is hard to say.  For me it is a film that I love in the moment when watching it (I have now seen it twice already, with my third viewing later this week at MIFF), but strangely it doesn’t really stay with me once the film is done.  After having a brief conversation with a friend about the film earlier this week, she felt that there is a lot leading up in the film for not much payoff.  I guess there is some validity to this opinion because I agree that it always feels like the film is going to end on a grander note; that it is building to something so much more than it delivers.  As a result of this, it feels like the film never soars.  It hits its peak early and stays consistently at that level rather than building and building to the expected crescendo.  Personally, I feel this is the fault of first time writer Wentworth Miller.  While Miller delivers a good script here, the structure of certain scenes just feels a little off, and this is particularly true of the ending.

Overall though, I found “Stoker” to be an enjoyable movie experience particularly due to Park Chan-Wook’s directorial brilliance and the performances from the three Australian women.  While the film is filled with disturbing themes and moments, Park never sensationalizes them, rather he handles them maturely and thus stopping “Stoker” from becoming the exploitation film it may have become in lesser hands.  Still, Park Chan-Wook is no stranger to disturbing content (hello, “Oldboy”) so I guess this is to be expected.  The visual style is, no surprise, amazing but if the film does have a problem it may be its momentum towards its finale.  No matter, this is still a film that I can see myself revisiting a number of times in the future and have no problem recommending.

3.5 Stars.  

** I just want to note that I have deliberately neglected to mention certain plot points of the film to enhance the viewing experience of anyone who plans to watch “Stoker”, as it is definitely a film that works better the less you know going in.

ONLY GOD FORGIVES

Before the release of “Drive”, I must admit that I knew very little about its director, Nicolas Winding Refn, and his films, with the only one I had seen being “Fear X”.  However after being absolutely blown away by his 2011 film (I rated “Drive” as the best directed film I had seen of that year), I meticulously went back through his filmography and caught up with all of his other work (with the exception of his “Miss Marple” television movie) and for the majority, I was greatly impressed with what I saw.  “Pusher”, “Bleeder” and “Valhalla Rising”, I all thought were spectacular, but even the titles I didn’t like as much (such as “Bronson”), it was easy to respect the level of filmmaking used to create these stories.  It is very obvious that Refn has immense talent behind the camera and as his career has gone on, his visual style continues to be defined and impress.  Because of all of this, “Only God Forgives” was the first time I had gone into a Refn film with massive expectations, especially considering he was reteaming with his leading man from “Drive”, Ryan Gosling.  So did the film meet my expectations or disappoint terribly?

“Only God Forgives” is set in modern day Bangkok, and it is here where we meet Julian, an American drug dealer who is using his muay thai boxing school as a front to distribute his goods.  After hearing the news that his older brother had just been murdered, he sets about righting that wrong by finding the person responsible and enacting his revenge.  However when he understands the reasons on why his brother was killed and that a cop was involved also, he rethinks his ideas of revenge.  That is until Crystal, his tough-as-nails mother, enters the scene, who demands that Julian do something and that is to bring the head of whoever murdered her first born son to her.  She embarrasses and emasculates her son until she gets her way, but it soon becomes obvious that the policeman involved, Chang, is someone Julian does not want to mess with.  Chang believes that he is some sort of Angel of Vengeance and he alone chooses who lives and dies for the crimes they have committed. 

It is with great sadness that I have to report that I think “Only God Forgives” is Nicolas Winding Refn’s first dud film.  There is just nothing to it.  The revenge plot is paper thin and is as basic as it gets and to stretch out this minimal story for ninety minutes just does the film no favours at all.  I am well aware that Refn believes he has created a story with a subtext involving God (Chang), the Devil (Crystal) and a man looking for forgiveness for his past sins (Julian), but really there isn’t enough meat on the bone here to give that subtext any weight.  What I mean by this is this may be exactly what Refn wanted to get across with “Only God Forgives” but he has failed to do so successfully.  Personally, I think a lot of this film has been done with the intent to shock and nothing more (as if he thinks pushing the boundaries here gives the film extra gravitas), especially with the violence and particularly Crystal’s dialogue.  Admirers of the film would argue that this dialogue helps define the characters but personally I found it cringe-worthy and again, was only used to shock.  The film is shallow and really has nothing to say, and dare I say it, is pretentious.  

It is very apparent that the bond forged between director and star was very strong during the making of “Drive” because this loyalty to Refn is the only reason I can think of for why Ryan Gosling would accept such a nothing role with which he is given here with Julian.  The character is so underwritten, there is literally no depth to him, what you see on the surface is all there is; and unfortunately Gosling has been unable to instill anything further into the character to flesh him out.  As much of a fan of Gosling as I am, he really is quite poor here.  It is now very well known that he only has seventeen lines of dialogue in “Only God Forgives” with the rest of his screentime consisting of him brooding or blankly staring into dead space.  While this minimalism worked brilliantly for his character in “Drive”, it just does not work here.  The reason why is in “Drive” it was easy to feel that there was a lot going on behind the eyes of the unnamed driver; he was fighting the urges to reveal his violent self, whereas with Julian in “Only God Forgives”, it just looks like he wants to have a nap.  There just is no access into Julian and what he is feeling at all and this is really the main problem with the film.  Refn hasn’t invested anything in Julian even though he is meant to forward the plot.  He is a blank page; we know very little about the guy or what motivates him, and because of this it makes it very hard to care about him and what he does.  Also the fact that Julian’s brother was an arsehole to the extreme; it gives the audience another reason to care little for Julian’s quest.

While it is great to see Kristin Scott Thomas in a role unlike any she has played before (both physically and mentally), unfortunately her character Crystal is so unlikable and unbelievable, that you cannot help but feel her talents have been wasted here.  Her performance is so broad and totally over-the-top (no doubt directed that way by Refn) that she never once feels like a real person.  Even her love towards her murdered first born son just feels false; she is just so emotionally cold.  Worst of all is the fact that the primary function of the Crystal character is to shock or disturb the audience.  The dialogue she sprouts at a dinner scene with Julian and his “girlfriend” is laughable and utterly disgusting.  I will give props though to her look in the film.  Kristin Scott Thomas is almost unrecognizable here with her bleach blonde hair and provocative wardrobe. 

I have read a lot of reviews for “Only God Forgives” applauding the amazing performance from Vithaya Pansringarm as the “Angel of Vengeance” Chang, and while he probably does give the best performance in the film (it was a wise move to let the character speak his native tongue), to me it was nothing special.  There was something just a little flat with his performance, I do not know how to explain it, but it was a little one note for me.  However I thought he handled himself brilliantly in the fight scene with Ryan Gosling and really took hold of the role through his physicality here.  Talking about this scene, almost all of the trailers for “Only God Forgives” end with Gosling’s line “Wanna fight?”, indicating that the film is all leading to the confrontation between these two men, [spoiler alert] so I thought it was hilarious that when the two did end up fighting that Julian didn’t even land a single punch. [End of spoiler]

On the positive side of things, “Only God Forgives” looks amazing.  The hyper-stylized world created by Refn and cinematographer Larry Smith is gorgeous to look at, but as good as it is, I feel that it has been actually overdone a little.  The overuse of the colours red and yellow gets a bit much after awhile, especially when we finally get to see some scenes without them used and we witness just how beautiful the scenes are without them (the scenes with Crystal in her pink top immediately pop into my mind).  The camerawork and framing of shots is all done expertly though, with slow push-ins up a hallway being a regular shot, that creates amazing atmosphere in the film.  Again, the influence of David Lynch is felt, particularly during these hallway shots or the shots of the darkened doorway leading to who knows where.  It is very Lynchian without feeling derivative.  The other great asset “Only God Forgives” has is its sensational score from Cliff Martinez (also returning from “Drive”).  In fact, I would argue that the music is the strongest aspect of the film altogether particularly in creating the atmosphere of dread that Refn is going for, and the use of Thai pop songs is both brilliant and disarming.

Overall, I have to say that “Only God Forgives” is a pretty shallow film.  It is all style and no substance, and doesn’t appear to have anything to say at all.  Its revenge plot is paper thin, and the subtext that Refn has inserted has little to no gravitas to have an effect at all.  In context with the rest of Refn’s filmography, “Only God Forgives” is a very minor entry, but the film it resembles most is his 2009 film “Valhalla Rising” (which is interesting as he was originally going to make “Only God Forgives” after that film before he committed to “Drive” instead), although it has none of that film’s brilliance.  Anyone going in expecting this to be “Drive 2” had best check their expectations at the door because this is the opposite of what you are getting.  While both the look and music of the film are great, “Only God Forgives” ultimately is a grand disappointment and a shallow exercise in filmmaking.

2 Stars.

NUMBER SEVENTEEN

“Number Seventeen” is an oft neglected film in Alfred Hitchcock’s extensive oeuvre to the point that it is relatively unknown and seen.  Even the Master himself had no interest in making the picture.  The story goes that Hitchcock had his heart on making a comedy named “London Wall”, but the producers of the film decided to punish him for the failure of his previous film “Rich and Strange” that they took him off of that project and assigned him to work on “Number Seventeen” instead.  None too impressed by these events, Hitchcock didn’t take the job seriously and thus rushed through its making.  While “Number Seventeen” will never be confused for one of Hitchcock’s masterpieces, fans of the director will find a lot to like within this 1932 feature, making it at least worthwhile to check out.

The plot of “Number Seventeen” is a ridiculous and convoluted mess, and at times it is very hard to understand exactly what is going on, but the film initially takes place at a house ( number 17 of the street it is located) where an unknown man enters and almost immediately comes across another man who appears to be deceased.  However they are not the only people in the house, as there is also a bum named Ben lurking around the place and who initially becomes the prime suspect in the man’s murder.  As the story progresses, a diamond necklace is introduced along with a number of different and shady characters who all find themselves at the titular place, all with the intent of finding the necklace or boarding a train to….well, I’m not sure where, this is where I got confused.  Amazingly the train pasts underneath the house, so it makes it a great place to illegally board from.  To make the film even more exciting is the fact that no-one is who they initially seem, with identities often being confused and a famous policeman has even infiltrating the group undetected.

While the film is at times hard to understand, it is always enjoyable.  The film moves at a break-knot speed for its very short running time (63 minutes), and it is maybe this speed that makes it so easy to forgive (or not even realize) just how little sense the film makes.  Personally I had no idea what the whole idea of the train had to do with anything, but as long as I understood that getting to the train was important, that was all I needed to enjoy the film.  Initially I thought the finding of the diamond necklace was the most important thing, but then getting on the train seemed equally important too, but it doesn’t matter, just go with it and you will enjoy “Number Seventeen”.  Keeping track of just who everyone is in the film is equally as hard, as people hide their identities throughout, changing sides whenever they see fit too, and two (seemingly important) characters enter a room at one stage and are never seen again.  What also doesn’t help is the fact that two of the actors look almost identical to one another, thus causing even more confusion.  The one constant is the character of Ben, the drunkard of the film and also its comic relief.  There is no doubt he is who he says he is and he actually ends up being quite a funny character too.

So while the film is narratively a bit of a mess, what makes “Number Seventeen” so worthwhile is Hitchcock’s handling of the material.  As he didn’t take the making of the film very seriously, Hitchcock decided to experiment and play with the visuals of the film and a lot of what we see and know from classic Hitchcock films, can be seen in their infancy here.  Hitchcock experiments with the use of shadows extensively in “Number Seventeen” especially early on in the film.  None too surprisingly, Hitchcock uses the shadows to create an amazing feeling of suspense, even though these scenes usually end in some form of comedy.  The shadow work is very similar to the German Expressionist work seen in the classic silent films of that era (like “Nosferatu” and  “The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari”), creating an ominous atmosphere by dwarfing characters with huge menacing shadows.  The house at number 17 also has a large staircase in it, and anyone familiar with Hitchcock’s films knows he is a master at creating suspense through the use of a staircase, and he does so a number of times here and very successfully so.  The director’s fear of heights is well known and explored regularly in his films with characters often dangling from structures of great size (most famously Jimmy Stewart hanging from the gutter of a tall building in Hitchcock’s masterpiece “Vertigo”), and an early example is found here in “Number Seventeen” with two characters hanging for life on a broken beam of the aforementioned staircase.  Another highlight moment in the film is the amazing opening shot of the film that sees the main character’s hat blow off his head, the camera following it, until we get to the front door of the titular house, the man picks up his hat and enters the building going up the staircase until the body is discovered upstairs.  It is a tour de force shot and unlike most of what was being done in the infancy of “talking pictures” where the camera usually remained very static.

If “Number Seventeen” is famous for anything, it is for its climactic chase scene between a bus and a train at the end of the picture.  This scene is equally loved and loathed quite simply for the extensive use of models and miniatures to achieve the scene.  Personally I am in the “love” camp, and although it is always obvious that models are being used, I think Hitchcock has done an amazing job of making it all seem believable.  The scene is edited superbly and this helps in creating the illusion that what we are seeing is real and that there is a real sense of danger involved.  By alternating between shots of the models to the real bus and train, to the action happening within both vehicles (and thus with actors involved), Hitchcock successfully creates a realism where a lesser director would struggle.  Even the great French director, Jean-Pierre Melville was unable to pull off and hide the use of models (for a similar scene) in his final film “Un Flic”, made forty years after “Number Seventeen”.  

Overall, while you would never confuse “Number Seventeen” as a good Alfred Hitchcock film, there is actually a lot to like within it.  His visual experiments make the film very worthwhile as does its thrilling chase sequence at the end.  While the story and tone are all over the place, the film never becomes boring.  Performances are varied although I did get great enjoyment from Leon M. Lion’s drunken Ben who, while initially was very annoying, turned out to be very funny by the film’s end, even if he is a cockney cliché.  With a running time of only sixty three minutes, my advice is if you are a Hitchcock fan who has never seen “Number Seventeen”, sit back, relax and enjoy the film, as there is plenty to get out of it.

3 Stars.