Showing posts with label pascal laugier. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pascal laugier. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Satan's School for Ghouls: The Tall Man (2012)

This October, the agents of M.O.S.S. are digging deep into the heart of Halloween, taking a look at films about demons, the devil, and every kind of fiend. You can find our collected annals of evil here. In the first of my contributions, I interpret the definition of "fiend" as broadly as humanly possible.

(Warning: even though I'm not going to go into this film's twists in any detail, discussing anything about it can't help but touch spoiler territory, so proceed at your own risk. Structural spoilers ahoy, too!).

The charmingly named US mining town of Cold Rock, Washington (as always doubled by British Columbia, the Bronson Canyon of the 90s and beyond) has taken a turn for the worse ever since the mine shut down years ago. It's now a poster child for picturesque poverty and squalor, like a kid's version of Winter's Bone. But there's something worse than mere poverty stalking the town's streets. For some time now, the town's children have been disappearing one after the other, without a trace. The townspeople are convinced their children are taken away by someone who has taken on mythical proportions in their minds. Thus they have turned him into "the Tall Man", a creature half monster from under your bed, half mystery.

This case is quite beyond town sheriff Chestnut's (William B. "Cigarette Smoking Man" Davis) abilities, but Lieutenant Dodd (Stephen McHattie), the big city cop sent to take care of the case, hasn't proven to be any more effective. He's hanging around, watching the town by night, getting nowhere. Things change when the child of Cold Rock's only remaining medical professional, the nurse moonlighting as a bit of a social worker, widow of the town's now dead and practically sainted GP, and designated protagonist Julia Denning (Jessica Biel), is kidnapped. In the following hours, some truths about what is really going on are bound to get to light, though not all of them will be pleasant, or believable to an audience.

If Pascal Laugier's The Tall Man is one thing, then it is willing to be more unpredictable than it at first seems to be. The film starts out like your typical stylish Hollywood thriller, with a plot, characters and narrative beats that are realized with great technical proficiency by people of obvious talent. It begins as the type of film that is clearly competently made, but also a bit boring thanks to what looks like a total lack of imagination; really not what I had hoped for from the guy who made my favourite piece of "torture porn", Martyrs.

However, after forty minutes of the expected have firmly established in the audience's mind what kind of film it is watching, Laugier pulls the rug out from under our feet twice in short succession. The first time he does it only changes the sub-type of thriller the film is working in, suggesting a classic piece of small town paranoia, but the second one undermines all the unspoken assumptions one makes when watching a movie of this style and type, assumptions about the nature and character of protagonists and audience identification. Laugier uses its audience's knowledge of filmic structures against itself. For the following half hour or so, the film thrives on a rather delicious feeling of confusion, because now that it has shown how far it is willing to stray from the conventions of the genre it is working in, everything seems possible, any direction open again. For once, the question of what the hell is going on in a thriller actually becomes pertinent again.

Unfortunately, the film's problems begin once Laugier decides to answer the question about what is going on. I would argue that, after the awesome (in the classic sense of the word) double-twist, there were only two ways the movie could have kept what its build-up promised: either by not answering the central questions of its plot at all, but keeping to suggestions and hints to incite feelings of dread and/or hope, or by giving an answer that's as dark and unpleasant as it could get away with.

Instead, the film ends on a curious mix of sentimentality and the sort of classism that makes a few distracting noises to pretend it isn't classist but humanist. There's pretension of going for a morally grey zone, but it's just damnably unconvincing after a film that seemed interested in doing interesting things with the genre it is working in, a film that seemed to be willing to go to uncomfortable and surprising places. Even worse, the ending we get is banal and therefore deeply unsatisfying, leaving the carefully built mood of what came before and the promises of mythic depth behind for the least exciting and thoughtful ending. Which at least is in keeping with The Tall Man's unpredictability.

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Martyrs (2008)

As a little girl, Lucie (Mylene Jampanoi) has been held captive and abused by a group of strangers. The girl escapes and is brought to an orphanage, where she meets Anna (Morjana Aloui), who is fast becoming the only person the traumatized girl trusts.

Fifteen years later, Lucie sees a picture of her tormentors in a newspaper. Despite Anna's moderating influence, the hallucination stricken (if the things she sees are in fact hallucinations and not something far worse) young woman is hellbent on getting revenge for the things that were done to her - if just to alleviate the fear and the feelings of guilt that make her life hardly bearable.

Martyrs is another entry into the new(ish) French horror sub-genre of the New Cinema of Cruelty (you could also call it Torture Porn plus, if you like) like Frontier(s) or Inside. For me, this turned out to be the most effective and therefore most unpleasant film of its kind I have seen. How much this will do for (or rather to) you will probably depend on your reaction to the tonal and thematic shift the film makes at one point. Whereas other films of the sub-genre go exactly into the direction you'd expect, Martyrs takes a much weirder (in more than one meaning of the word) turn by which what initially seems to be a film that talks about survivor guilt in the most blunt way possible transforms into something closer in sensibilities to Barker and Poe. For some, this shift will probably ruin the film, for others like me, it will actually make it worthwhile (if "worthwhile" is a word one wants to use for a film that tries to emulate the feeling of being repeatedly hit in the head with a blunt object, that is).

What the shift undeniably does is make talking about Martyrs decidedly difficult. I'm usually not shying away from spoilers, but in this case I (like most other reviewers on the 'net, it seems) think going into details would derive the film of some of its power.

So, what else can I say? I can most certainly compliment the actresses (and this is at its core a film about women, for better or worse - queue your own thoughts about the violation of women on screen here; at least nobody can reasonably blame the film for violating women on screen for our entertainment) for their performances, which at times reached a level where I found it physically painful to watch what happens to them. (Yeah, that's a compliment in this context).

I can also say that Pascal Laugiers direction is so self assured, tight, yet at times strangely abstract in its depiction of suffering, while still not dehumanizing the victim of violence - I know, this does not make much sense on paper - that I am now even looking forward to the Hellraiser remake he is directing next.

If you feel prepared for a cinematic experience lying (based on your disposition) somewhere between rather unpleasant and extremely disturbing, Martyrs should be your film. Just don't think that it will do what you expect it to do at all times.