The Neon Demon (2016)

neon1Typical of a Nicolas Winding Refn picture, this is a prime example in the school of style over substance film-making. Some might argue that this is an ideal approach for this film, as it focuses on the vacuous and image-centered business of modeling and advertising, but to me that is just excusing NWR for the sin of bad storytelling and making a film lacking any real substance. Its all smoke and mirrors. Yes its very impressive visually at times, and very stylish too, and its story of a 16-year old beauty being literally devoured by the fashion industry makes something of a curious adult fairy tale, but when its over it feels like a very empty experience. Patently pretentious, I finished the film feeling like I’d been taken for a ride, that the film was a joke, and that joke was on me.

Not for the first time either, regards NWR films, having suffered through Only God Forgives. Its seems that Drive was the exception to the rule. I think I shall steer well clear of future NWR films, they clearly aren’t for me.


Raging at Cain

cain2017.11: Raising Cain (1992), Blu-ray

Brian De Palma is some kind of crazy guy. He’s like Hitchcock without the ‘Caution’ button. I mention Hitchcock because De Palma is obviously so devoted to mimicking him through so many of his films. Hitch fashioned these great thrillers full of manipulation and sleight of hand but he knew where to draw the line, whereas de Palma has always happily crossed it, hopelessly inspired/devoted to making bizarre dreamscapes of Hitchcock movies. They don’t feel real, don’t even feel like films Hitchcock might have made, but rather films Hitch might have dreamed in his sleep after a night in the wine cellar. The same way that De Palma’s Obsession feels like a drunken nightmare version of Hitch’s Vertigo.

I’m in two minds about Raising Cain. Which is quite apt really, as its a film about multiple personalities. I should start at the outset by stating that I watched the director’s cut (or to be more precise, the non-director’s reassembly of the theatrical cut) and only afterwards watched some of the theatrical to get a grip of the changes. Basically, the theatrical cut is pretty much a chronological edit of the events of the story, whereas the other cut moves sequences out of order, heightening the mystery and sense of dreamlike weirdness. Neither version makes for a great film, although De Palma aficionados might maintain the directors cut is a great De Palma film (something else entirely?). It is generally considered to be the definitive version, which is why I elected to watch it first.

Fans of David Lynch and Nicolas Winding Refn might find much to enjoy in Raising Cain. There are many viewers these days quite happy to watch obtuse, lazily written and nonsensical films, as if not having plots or old-fashioned arcs or believable characters is actually a bonus, and style is everything. It pretty much sums up De Palma at his worst. His direction is never subtle, and his sleight-of-hand, such as intense distorted close-ups and off-kilter camera angles and slipping into slow motion now and again, always draws attention to itself, as if the style is the be-all and end-all. Which might be used as an excuse for the lazy writing and underwritten characters. The dreamlike sensibility of this film is only exacerbated by characters never behaving remotely normally. The cops, for instance, never talk or act or ever convince as being cops.

The story is.. well, what is it? Three arcs seem to run through the film and neither of them convince, neither have any foundation. Carter Nix (John Lithgow),  is a child psychologist who ‘suffers’ from having several personalities in his head, one of whom is a serial killer. His wife Jenny (Lolita Davidovich) is a doctor slipping back into a previously-aborted affair with a child patients father. And then there’s something about children being kidnapped for psychological experiments by Carter Nix’s own father (also played by Lithgow) who is believed to have died years before. There is no chemistry between Carter or Jenny, and her tryst doesn’t really convince either. Lithgow does a sterling job at chewing up the scenery in his three (or is it four?) roles. Davidovich blankly stumbles around like a horny frustrated wife in a permanent mills & boon daydream. De Palma runs amok with his POV camera and weird shots and film speeds. Nothing ever feels remotely real. We don’t understand why Jenny feels the need to stray or is unfulfilled with her husband, we don’t understand why Carter is even with her or why he does what he does, we don’t understand why the cops are so clueless or disinterested (some retired ex-cop seems to hang around the office until he barks up about a past case involving Carter’s father that kicks the ‘plot’ forward). Or why some guy in a van with a harpoon sticking out the back keeps moving backwards and forwards in a carpark waiting for the inevitable to happen. Or why it is prefigured by Jenny having a dream of losing control in her car and getting impaled by a statues spear.

So as a ‘normal’ film the film  doesn’t work at all. But as a dream put on film -unfocused, slipping forwards and backwards in time, repeating moments with dreams within dreams, it does offer a rather strange and compelling experience. Its like something De Palma dreamed one night turned into a movie, or what it would be like if we could plug into, Brainstorm-like, into someone’s dream. Is it Jenny’s dream?  I’m certain this film has its fans, as well as its detractors. I’m just not sure which camp I’m in yet. Its either utter rubbish or a work of genius.

Only God Forgives (2013)

ogf1Only God Forgives is either a brooding masterpiece or a pretentious calamity, I’m not sure which- or maybe it’s both.  I recall news from its premier in Cannes of people walking out mid-movie (I don ‘t know if it was true or not but having watched it I can understand it if people did walk). Some reviews from Cannes declared it a masterpiece and others derided it as meaningless nonsense,  so it even split that crowd, which takes some doing . For myself, well, I guess I’m split down the middle with this one after my first viewing- in its defence, it’s certainly the kind of film that demands a revisit in order to really be sure of ‘getting’ it. But whether films really should need that second viewing at all is another matter entirely.

Its a valid argument that Only God Forgives suffers from following on from Nicolas Winding Refn’s previous film, Drive, which also starred Ryan Gosling, if only because Drive proved so popular with a mainstream which Only God Forgives seems hell-bent on now alienating, and its fascinating to compare the two films. Drive was a stylish, powerfully effective thriller that remains one of my favourite films of the last decade. It was an arthouse movie dressed up as a standard Hollywood thriller, oozing style and cinematic magic.  It looked utterly beautiful, sounded beautiful, but beyond that surface gloss had a great story, great acting and some hidden depth.

Indeed in many ways Only God Forgives is an anti-Drive, which was likely a concious decision on Refn’s part (whether that was brave or foolish though is debatable). Even people who didn’t rate Drive would admit to it at least having had a coherent plot, whereas that can’t be necessarily said of Only God Forgives even by its fans. While  Drive had layers of subtext and melancholy, Only God Forgives is drenched in doom and despair, plot and subtext replaced either by enigmatic mystery or awful storytelling (depending on how much slack you’re willing to cut it). It lack’s Drive‘s substance, its character arcs replaced by a rather incoherent series of events that may or may not even be related, for reasons that are never clear, with hardly any sense of purpose or than to infuriate and confuse. It may be a great movie, it may be great art, it may be utter bollocks. I have an inclination to lean towards the latter as I disliked Refn’s earlier film Valhalla Rising for being pretentious bad storytelling but after Drive I’m prepared to cut Refn some slack.

ogf3So, where to begin? Lets look at what at least appears to be happening.  We are in Bangkok. Julian (Gosling) runs a boxing club with his brother Billy, but the club is a front for a drugs operation.  After a drunken night out searching for an under-age prostitute, Billy is found having raped and killed a sixteen year old prostitute, and is then murdered by the girl’s father under the allowance/encouragement of the corrupt police and its mysterious karaoke-singing Captain Chang (Vithaya Pansringarm). Soon after Julian’s mother (an unrecognisable but scene-stealing Kristin Scott Thomas) arrives in Bangkok demanding bloody revenge on all those responsible.

Its easy to understand why that’s how the marketing sold the film (and thus alienated many eventual audiences afterwards). Because that isn’t necessarily what the film is really about.

Consider this alternative view. We are, literally, in Hell. All who dwell here are guilty of terrible crimes and misdeeds, deserving of punishment and/or begging for atonement, lingering in this neon-drenched Bangkok. Julian runs a boxing club with his brother Billy as a front for a drugs operation. We will eventually learn that both suffered from an abusive mother who likely had incestuous affairs with both of them- indeed Julian killed his own father due to his own feelings of jealousy and guilt (Julian in particular is obsessed with this guilt, literally seeing blood on his hands that he cannot wash away). Both boys are in Hell for their past lives and are looking for a way out, Billy taking the first and simplest opportunity. Billy actually states he is ‘going to meet the Devil’ and goes out, a night of violence culminating in the rape and murder of a Thai prostitute, after which he simply waits for the police to turn up, awaiting his punishment. Like Hell’s own footsoldiers, the police dutifully arrive, and the police captain like an Archangel of Death (or the Devil, or even, dare I say it, God Himself) pronounces judgement on Billy who, strangely, does not attempt to escape or fight back, simply allowing the dead girl’s father to beat him to a bloody death. Chang follows this with judgement on the dead girls own father for allowing his daughters to fall into prostitution, before retiring to a nightclub to relax singing at a karaoke (raising the bizarre question,  does God relax from His labours by becoming a karaoke?). Soon after, Julian’s mother Crystal arrives in this Purgatory declaring that the reprehensible, drug-dealing rapist Billy was actually her favourite, demanding bloody revenge on those who took her favoured son away from her whilst demeaning Julian at every opportunity,  particularly in front of Julian’s girlfriend to whom she criticises Julian’s manhood comparing it to Billy’s.  Cheerful movie this decidedly isn’t.


So what’s the film really about? What’s actually going on? After just this one viewing I cannot possibly say. Clearly I need to follow up my 2014 Hitlist with ‘A List Of Films I Need To See Again’, and put this at the top of the list. On the plus side, it looks astonishing in HD, and has an utterly mesmerising Cliff Martinez score. But its hard to say whether there’s a really good film here buried under the apparent subtext (ala Mullholland Drive, say)or if its just really bad storytelling. My ‘view’ of what the film may be about might just be my imagination apologising for the films faults, in much the same way my ideas about Gravity’s final third may just be me excusing that film  for the many ‘conveniences’ riddling it.  Sure, Only God Forgives certainly looks gorgeous but so many films do these days, and I particularly dislike films that are all style over content. Well, we’ll have to wait and see.

Returning to Drive

drivebluFinally got around to re-watching Nicolas Winding Refn’s Drive the other night. It’s a film I saw on rental last year which I enjoyed so much an eventual Blu-ray purchase was inevitable.

The film is the very epitome of cool. The retro-synth soundtrack is gorgeous, something that, with the neon-drenched visuals, instantly evokes memories of the days when Miami Vice was the coolest show on television. Drive is a film-noir/pulp fantasy of a Mysterious Stranger who befriends and protects a troubled family beset by hostile forces; a plot familiar to anyone who has seen the Leone/Eastwood westerns of the ‘sixties.  Indeed there is a lot of Clint Eastwood’s early screen persona of cool, silent wrath in Ryan Gosling’s performance. Of course the story here is set in a modern metropolis, the horses replaced by cars, but its cinematic roots are clear.  Throw in all manner of further references to Walter Hill’s The Driver, or Michael Mann’s Heat, or the shocking moments of violence of Martin Scorcese’s Taxi Driver, and you have a film that is quite mesmerising.  It isn’t a gangster movie, or a car-racing movie, or a love story, or a crime thriller… and yet it is all those things and more. Watching it again after so many months, I was surprised how sophisticated,  and yet at the same time simple, the whole thing is. So much is told in the long silences, its a truly cinematic movie. Its one of those movies that you just don’t want to end,  and when it does, you want a sequel… and yet you don’t. It’s perfect as it is, and too many good films have been spoiled by sequels.

Ryan Gosling is remarkable in exuding heroic cool, and while he may seem a bit too pretty to be real (something true of too many male actors these days), his glacier-like face is well served by those emotive eyes. Carey Mulligan does well as his love-interest and the unwitting catalyst of all that unfolds. The supporting cast is excellent- Ron Perlman may be the main bad-guy of the film but it is his partner, played by Albert Brooks, who is the real surprise to me.  Played with an icy,  devastatingly business-like attitude to doing what simply has to be done, regardless of how morally wrong it may be, his character is a thing of modern urban nightmare.

Refn has a new film out soon, Only God Forgives, in which he has again teamed up with Ryan Gosling. The trailer looks electrifying. I can hardly wait.