MOEBIUS

After an accident on the set of his 2008 feature “Dream” almost saw the death of his lead actress, Kim Ki-Duk chose to take a three year sabbatical from filmmaking to find himself once more and to define what was really important in his life.  When he returned in 2011, he did so with two unique and experimental features, “Arirang” and “Amen”, both of which are little seen.  It wasn’t until the following year that Ki-Duk made his explosive return to narrative features with his stunning film “Pieta”.  With “Pieta” it had appeared that this brilliant director had once again found himself and his passion for filmmaking as he delivered a revenge story unlike any other and one that only Kim Ki-Duk himself could have made.  It was a glorious return to form, and like many of his previous films, was also gorgeous visually (although he had now replaced film with a digital source).  Like the Kim Ki-Duk of old, “Pieta” was quickly followed up with a new feature; 2013’s “Moebius”, a film that was immediately thrust into the spotlight after it was banned in South Korea.  While Kim Ki-Duk had never shied away from controversial subjects before, this was the first time one of his features had been banned in his homeland.  Eventually after much negotiation with the Korean Censorship Board and with significant trims performed on the film, “Moebius” did end up being released in South Korea.  So what was all of the controversy about and was it warranted?

“Moebius” is an entirely dialogue-free film that opens at a morning breakfast of a family that consists of a mother, father and their teenage son.  The father’s mobile phone begins to ring and the mother knows that it is from her husband’s mistress.  Incensed, she attempts to wrestle the phone free from him but without success.  Although we are not privy to the conversation that takes place, it is obvious that the man has organized a date with this other woman much to the heartbreak of his wife.  Later that night , the two indeed hook up for a rendezvous at a little restaurant in town, and are then coincidentally spotted by the man’s son, who is shocked by his father’s infidelity.  The son follows his father and his mistress until they reach a car where he witnesses this infidelity in a purely physical form.  The boy seems entranced, as he stands there watching but it is in this moment that we realize that he is not the only witness to the events unfolding.  The man’s wife has followed him and seen everything that has taken place, including the presence of her son.  It all becomes too much for the poor woman to take, and her mind snaps and insanity takes hold.  Later that night back at home, the woman decides that she has had enough and she is going to do something.  She checks on her son to make sure he is asleep but instead finds the boy masturbating.  Disgusted by what she assumes is her son pleasuring himself over her husband’s infidelity, the woman quietly enters her bedroom and attempts to sever her husband’s penis from the rest of his body.  Just before she is able to do so, the man awakens and quickly kicks her off the bed.  Almost in a purely reactive state and not thinking about her consequent actions, the woman then bursts into her teenage son’s room and succeeds in doing to him what she couldn’t to her husband, before fleeing the household entirely.  With the young boy bleeding profusely and screaming in pain, it suddenly hits the man what his selfishness has cost the rest of his family.  This is the opening ten minutes of “Moebius” and from here on, the film gets really disturbing.

As you should be able to tell from the opening paragraph, “Moebius” is a seriously disturbing film that heads further down the path of rape, self mutilation, incest and murder, as the film goes on.  Anyone familiar with Kim Ki-Duk and his films would know that he has tackled the majority of these themes before in past works, but personally, I just didn’t think he was as successful here as he has been in the past.  It almost felt that everything that existed in “Moebius” was just there to shock and that there was no real purpose to the film.  Actually that is not entirely correct because I understand that Kim Ki-Duk has an agenda with the film, one that has Buddhist angle, but he just doesn’t deliver it in a manner that is easy to understand, which ultimately makes “Moebius” a frustrating movie experience.  What makes it so frustrating is that there are moments that are totally brilliant, however there are more moments that are equally absurd.  It almost comes across as an immature piece of work; one with not a lot of thought put behind it.  Even from a visual standpoint, the digital photography often looks sloppy with rough and shaky camerawork sadly being the norm.  That said, even within these camera moves, there are images that are absolutely gorgeous (perfect to sell the film via stills) but more often than not, “Moebius” has a very cheap look to it.  This is probably true though; I cannot imagine that “Moebius” had a large budget at all but with “Pieta”, Kim Ki-Duk was able to hide these deficiencies where he cannot here. 

Where the film does excel at is in its performances.  Everyone involved gives their heart and soul to their characters; all of them having to go to a very dark place within their psyches.  As good as Seo Young-Ju and Jo Jae-Hyeon both are as son and father respectively, for me the performance(s) that stole “Moebius” was that of Lee Eun-Woo who plays victim and victimizer with equal aplomb.  Kim Ki-Duk chose to cast Eun-Woo in both the female roles in the film, so she is playing the mother and the woman who her husband is having an affair with.  This is an incredibly bold decision by Ki-Duk and one that pays off handsomely because Eun-Woo is very successful at portraying two completely different characters.  To be honest, she was so good that I did not realize it was the same actress playing both roles until the end credits came up.  Eun-Woo gets to portray both sides of the coin here; playing the nice, caring and ironically maternal side when she is the mistress, while in portraying the mother, she excels in exposing the woman’s darkness and deteriorating mental state.  Personally I thought she was chilling as the mother, with her crazy messed hair and her demented smile.

Near the beginning of this review I mentioned that “Moebius” is completely dialogue free, and for those familiar with the cinema of Kim Ki-Duk, I’m sure this decision comes as no shock.  Ki-Duk’s films have never relied on dialogue to tell the story and as such, it’s always been kept to a minimum.  It just seemed like a natural progression that he eventually would make a film that excises dialogue completely and let his images tell the story completely.  However, “Moebius” was the wrong film to try this.  There were a number of times during the film that I felt that dialogue was needed to really get across the emotional intensity of what was happening on screen, particularly during certain moments between the father and son.  It all felt really forced and not at all organic to the film.  Instead of giving a sense of poetry (like in the moments of silence seen in “The Isle”), the lack of talking here felt false and almost made it seem as if the characters we were watching were mute.  The fact that the idea doesn’t work at all, really does shock me, because I think Kim Ki-Duk is a master at letting images tell a story and only using dialogue when necessary, but he really fumbled the ball here because it shows that by not including dialogue when it is needed, it can hurt your film just as much as when you overuse it.

Overall, I found Kim Ki-Duk’s latest film to be a bit of a disappointment, particularly after the stellar “Pieta”.  While “Moebius” is certainly an interesting film, Ki-Duk’s handling of the material is immature and a little muddled, making his intentions behind the film frustratingly obtuse (surely he is saying more than "cheaters never prosper").  Due to the extreme nature of the film and its themes, it is safe to say that this film isn’t for everyone, particularly because it goes to some very dark places (although ironically I’m sure if you asked Kim Ki-Duk, he would say that the ending is a happy one), but if you are interested in dark cinema like this, I implore you to go in as cold as you can, knowing as little about the film as possible.  While this is not a favourite of mine from this great director, I know that there are many already championing this film and because of this I recommend viewing “Moebius” at least once to make up your own mind whether its genius or disappointment.

3 Stars.

WE ARE WHAT WE ARE

The problem with most remakes is that, either through sheer laziness or perhaps a misplaced slavish loyalty to the original film, they ultimately tell the exact same story that has come before with very little variance.  Whether it is following the original story beat for beat or (in a worst case scenario) shot for shot, it gives the viewer nothing new to look forward to thus making the entire film’s existence pointless.  The very best remakes tend to take the basic elements of the original and either improve upon them or use them to take the story on a different path entirely.  A great recent example of this is Jim Mickle’s U.S remake of Jorge Michel Grau’s 2010 Mexican original “We Are What We Are (Somos Los Que Hay)”.  Both films deal with a family who after the death of a key member, have to come to terms with the shifts of power and responsibilities within the group as they prepare for a yearly ritual that is to take place in just days.  Aside from this though, the two films couldn’t be more different.

Set in upstate New York, the Parker family is left reeling after the sudden and unexpected death of its matriarch.  Due to the pain of mourning his beloved wife, Frank Parker sends his two daughters, Rose and Iris, to identify the body of their mother.  While the sadness of their loss permeates their thoughts, the girls cannot help but talk about the upcoming religious ritual and who will now be left with the deeds of preparing such a ritual.  Frank soon reveals to the girls that tradition states that the eldest daughter must fill the role left vacant by their mother.  Understanding that she has no choice, Iris is still reticent to take on the duties, knowing exactly what they entail.  Meanwhile, due to the powerful rainstorms and flooding the local area is experiencing, odd things begin to be washed up on the riverbanks and while out walking his pet dog, Doctor Barrow comes across a piece of bone which he is convinced is of human origin.  Barrow believes that his finding may also be a clue into the disappearance of his only daughter who has not been seen for around a decade.  As his investigations intensify, it seems certain that his path is destined to cross with the Parker’s, as the shocking truth about their centuries old ritual is finally revealed. 

Not only is Jim Mickle’s version of “We Are What We Are” a great remake, it is a great horror film period.  Mickle immediately differentiates his film from the original by locating the story’s events in a rural setting, as opposed to the urban environment of the Mexican film.  He also reverses the sexes of all the main characters, which changes the dynamics of the film entirely.  In Grau’s original film, not only is it the father that passes away, but it is his teenage sons who must then take on the mantle.  By changing the protagonists of the film into female, Mickle has also changed the whole tone, atmosphere and pace of his film.  Gone is the machismo and competitive one-upmanship of the brothers and in its place is a more gentle and placid feeling which comes from the sisters being loving and close to one another as opposed to competitive.  While it is true the pace of “We Are What We Are” is of a slow nature, the creepy atmosphere that Mickle is able to create ensures that the film is never boring, and ends up being very disturbing.

There is so much to like about this version of “We Are What We Are” and the way it has been all put together.  The original film is a very rough and I guess, immediate looking film, where as this version has the appearance of something that was well planned out before shooting began.  The film is filled with gorgeously composed images, immaculately framed, with the odd split diopter shot thrown in for good measure.  Being a massive Brian De Palma fan, it goes without saying that I am a huge fan of split diopter shots, particularly when they are done well and are seamless, which most are here, although there was one instance when the actor in the left field of focus crossed into the right field (causing part of them to become out of focus) that destroyed the illusion of the shot and took me out of the film for a brief second.  Other than that little hiccup, I was very impressed by the visual style of “We Are What We Are”.  This is a beautiful little horror film and cinematographer Ryan Samul deserves recognition for the great work that he has done here.

However without the stellar work that has been done from both, the costume and art departments, the film would not look as beautiful as it does.  I was very impressed with Liz Vastola’s costume designs, particularly with the clothes designed for both Iris and Rose.  While the film is set in the present, Vastola’s designs for the girls gives the film a real “old” feeling which is very appropriate in regards to the ritual they are preparing for.  The girls look stunningly serene and almost angelic, and come across as if they are from another era entirely.  Interestingly when the girls briefly leave their house and head to the market, their attire changes to fit their environment and they look like any other modern girl.

As well as having a keen visual eye in regards to this project, Jim Mickle has also elicited some amazing performances from his entire cast.  There is no one here that gives a bad performance, and Mickle has done a great job of ensuring that no one overplays their role.  Each actor convinces and brings a reality to a situation that, if handled incorrectly, could come across as incredibly hokey.  From Bill Sage (playing against type from the roles he is regularly known for that he did in the past with Hal Hartley) as the quietly domineering and strict father Frank, to Kelly McGillis as the caring (and clueless) next door neighbour, to Ambyr Childers who plays Iris, the new matriarch of the family; everyone is excellent.  However it is Julia Garner who impresses the most in “We Are What We Are” and she totally steals the film.  Garner plays the younger sister Rose but does so with such charisma that you cannot take your eyes off of her when she is on screen.  It is a seriously commanding performance and she does it so effortlessly, without any theatrics at all.  Rose is a character who is young enough to question the ritual that they have grown up performing, but too young to challenge her father in regards to not taking part.  She also appears to be the most weary about everything that is going on, while her sister is distracted by what she is about to be forced to do.  The other standout performance for me was Michael Parks (who admittedly is good in almost everything he does) as Doc Barrow, who delicately portrays the man as a tired soul, almost ready to give-up but refuses to do so for the sake of his lost daughter.  Parks injects a melancholy in the man that you understand will never go away.  What I also loved about Parks performance was that it was so restrained.  As good as he is, Parks does have an ability to play roles a little over the top if he isn’t reined in, which Mickle appears to have been successful in doing.  Interestingly, the character of Doc Barrow and his subplot is completely absent in the Mexican version of the film, which gives the film a freshness and uniqueness to it all.

Up until now, I have kept the nature of the ritual secret, although most people by now know the true nature behind it.  For those that are still are unsure, I will not ruin it, but I will say that with this subject matter you could assume that “We Are What We Are” would be a very gory film.  In fact you would be entirely wrong, because it is just not that type of horror film.  Every chance the film has in going in that direction, Mickle steers it in the opposite way.  This is a horror film that relies on mood, atmosphere and a suspense that continually builds until the finale of the film.  However, this finale also turns out to be the films greatest mistake, to the point that it is almost disastrous.  It is during the ending that Mickle finally delivers on the blood and gore, and it is a total mis-step that almost destroys this amazing film.  It is so against the tone and mood of the rest of the film that it can only be described as a terrible decision on Mickle’s part and ends up making “We Are What We Are” just a good film, when it should have been a classic.  The only other recent film I can think of that has made a similar mistake is the remake of “The Last House On The Left”; a fantastic film ruined by that ridiculous microwave killing at the end. 

The only other flaw I felt this film had was a brief section where the girls are reading from their religion’s “bible”, reading about how this ritual first came to be, and Mickle has decided to visually represent these stories which I felt just wasn’t needed and probably should’ve been trimmed.  Personally it felt like it was from a different film entirely and thus didn’t work within the whole.

Overall, while it is sadly not perfect, Jim Mickle’s version of “We Are What We Are” is still a bloody good horror film and one of the best I have seen this year.  It has been impressively directed and is brilliantly acted by the whole cast, it is just a shame that it has that major hiccup at the end because without it, I honestly believe that this film was destined for classic status.  Personally I love the slow and eerie build up of the film, but understand that the pace of it will not be for everyone.  Spoiler Alert…..Still any film that lets Michael Parks say the line “Did you eat my daughter?”, has to be good right?!!!........End of Spoiler.

4 Stars.

THE DYING SWAN

Shot in 1916 (and released the following year), Yevgeni Bauer’s “The Dying Swan” is a strange tale that combines ballet, art, death and the macabre to unnerving effect.  The heroine of our story is Gizella, a young mute girl who lives with her father and who has an undying passion for dance, particularly ballet.  Being born mute though, Gizella finds it hard to interact with other people and because of this, romantic love has never crossed her path.  That is until she meets Viktor, a young playboy type, when he is out one day looking for his dog.  Viktor becomes entranced by the mute girl and the two begin dating.  Gizella falls head over heels for this man, but sadly Viktor throws her aside when he has had enough of her and begins to date someone else.  Totally heartbroken, Gizella pleads to her father that they leave their home and settle down elsewhere.  The father agrees and even finds his daughter a job at a ballet company where thanks to her amazing abilities in the form, Gizella soon becomes the number one draw card due to her devastating performance in the lead role of “The Dying Swan”.  Meanwhile, in another part of town, we meet Valeriy Glinskiy, a frustrated artist determined to capture the true spirit of death in one of his paintings.  One day he is dragged to the ballet by one of his friends and is spellbound by the dancer performing “The Dying Swan”.  He understands immediately that the sadness, despair and look of heartbreak behind the eyes of Gizella is exactly what is missing in his paintings and he convinces the girl to pose for him.  However, this simple act of posing for a painting spells the doom for all that are involved.

While Yevgeni Bauer is often regarded as a visual stylist when talking about his films, the technical qualities of “The Dying Swan” could be considered rather simplistic.  From memory, the camera only moves once in the entire picture, rather Bauer’s images are taken from front on with the majority of the action taking place center screen.  That said, Bauer does indeed have a keen visual eye because he fills the rest of the frame with beautiful detail to make sure that they feel anything but bland.  There are two standout sequences within “The Dying Swan” that make this film essential to search out and find.  The first is the actual performance of the titular ballet which is breathtaking in its beauty.  The actress who played Gizella, Vera Karalli, was actually a fully trained ballerina of the Russian Ballet and her expertise is on full display here.  It is in this scene that she is able to truly be comfortable in the role of Gizella and as good as she is at portraying the mute girl, it is safe to say that Karalli was a better dancer than she was an actress.

The other standout moment begins with the film’s only camera movement, as we see Gizella laying in her bed, obviously struggling in her sleep during the stormy night, when the camera slowly begins to track backwards giving as an extended look at Gizella’s room and almost announcing that stylistically the film is about to change.  What follows is a brilliant and macabre dream sequence that would be more accurately called a nightmare and could even be considered a premonition of sorts.  In the dream, Gizella is haunted by the artist’s past model who claims that the disturbed man killed her and that the crown Gizella is wearing belongs to her.  It is a fantastic scene, and visually a very dark one (not to mention thematically too) with thick shadows enveloping most of the frame to create a terrifying atmosphere.

While there is no doubt that Gizella is an expert at her trade, the same cannot be said for Valeriy Glinskiy, the self-important artist.  Although we are never privy to his works of art he is making in the moment, he does share them with his friend who after viewing the painting declares that there is no artistry at all in it, and goes even further by embarrassing the man saying that it is terrible.  Glinskiy can only see the beauty he is creating, believing he is finally achieving his ultimate dream.  Whether or not Bauer is saying that the artist is in fact delusional or if it is a comment on the whole “art is in the eye of the beholder” thing, either way Glinskiy comes across as a little pathetic.  However no matter how good or bad he is as an artist, it is through this character that we get the most devastating and devastatingly beautiful image that we do with the final shot of “The Dying Swan”, and to that degree, I guess in a way Glinskiy is finally successful.

“The Dying Swan” signified an end of an era in a couple of ways.  Sadly six months after the release of this film, Yevgeni Bauer died from pneumonia and complications from a broken leg he suffered while making a film entitled “For Happiness”.  1917 also saw the start of the Communist Revolution and the Russian Civil War which lasted until 1921, and from this point the types of film’s that filmmakers like Bauer were making in Russia no longer were getting made, instead they were replaced with revolutionary films, the types that Sergei Eisenstein would later make famous to the world with films like “Battleship Potemkin” and “Strike”.

Overall, I found “The Dying Swan” to be a beautifully macabre film.  It is romantic and twisted both, and at a mere forty nine minutes long, is definitely worth a look.  While the editing of the film makes time move so quickly that it can become a little confusing, this is a minor quibble of a hugely entertaining film.  

3.5 Stars.