Brakathor

One thing this movie made me come to terms with is, I really just hate everyone now. I like to say "I'm an angry hate filled man," in a somewhat joking way, but no I REALLY do, and it's visceral. It's intense even, and I almost don't recognize myself. I hate progressively minded people so damn much. I hate you if you do drugs. I hate you if you engage in promiscuous sex, and then boast about it to your friends... I hate you if you've ever had an abortion, or think it's ok to casually do so just because you're a free-loving dumdum who can't figure out how condoms work. I hate you if you're a deadbeat mom who surrounds your kid with all this crappy energy. I REALLY hate you if you're gender queer, or worse, gender "questioning," Ugh... (I do have trans friends, but it's a guarded truce). I hate you if you're a dumb ignorant immigrant who has perpetual immigrant syndrome (I too kind of have that). I REALLY REALLY hate you if you're French. Oh God, what a bunch of ignorant primitive slobs the younger generation is. These Inner city French people have gotta be the DUMBEST lowest effing people on the planet, Just pure trash EVEN worse than Bri'ish chavs. The scene where the one chick sets herself on fire: GOOD. I bet it smells like a burning trash pile too.

Anyway, to take it back a step, none of this has anything to do with me; I'm just painting a picture, because these are the people that this film revolves around; and for me personally, it's just impossible for me to get invested in these characters. I don't care about anything that happens to them... AT ALL. In the larger sense, I'm sick of all the noise, and all the madness, and that's what this film encompasses, pure madness, noise, and decay. It's worth noting that this lifestyle, these characters, and this culture, for sure are not necessarily being painted in a POSITIVE light, and quite probably intentionally the opposite.

I don't know much about Gaspar Noe as a man, but my impression is that the lens of this film is still coming from the perspective of inside looking out, rather than outside looking in. In every way, this film really feels very much like jumping the shark. You don't want to say Gaspar Noe is "overrated" per se, as he did direct "Seul Contre Tous," and I guess some people were impressed by "irreversible" too, but 20 years later, it's just like really dude? You don't have any more stories to tell? Are we just going to be pissing around with pure nonsense for the next 20 years too? And this film IS pure nonsense, let's make no mistake about that.

If I saw this film around the time it came out, I probably would have been able to appreciate it for what it is: just a bacchanal of pure excess and mayhem for its own sake. Granted, in 2018, I was already changing, but my views and emotions around this stuff were still very nebulous. 10 years ago, I was basically one of these people, both culturally and politically in most ways: just a young stupid twit with no guidance, losing himself to excess.

As a whole, the film is really just one big gross-out scene though, and being not much more than that, it's very hard to take seriously. It's almost a little bit embarrassing for a director of Noe's caliber to put something like this out. I mean, first of all, let's start off with the premise. (That's right, I can ACTUALLY get down to critiquing the movie itself, halfway through the review, just like the opening credits come in when the film is half over, cause I'm super edgy like that... Ugh.)

Ok, so the film essentially revolves around one big drug out. Got it. It wouldn't be the first, and it certainly wouldn't be the last. You put a bunch of people in a room and feed them acid: VERY seldom does it end this bad, in fact, probably never, as in LITERALLY never. This would never happen... So what are we doing here? Is this some sort of grandiose social commentary? I kind of doubt it, and even if it is, it's frankly too forced to be in any way relevant to the real world.

The problem is, things wouldn't devolve to this extent unless the people involved are mostly all just EXTREMELY awful people, as in violent, mean, psychopathic even. Seriously, where are the normies at? This whole scene seems to be severely lacking in normal ordinary people, even though the first half of the film, which consists mainly of mock interviews, seeks very hard to normalize and humanize them, seeks to get you to empathize with them. It just doesn't work.

For one thing, they seem very unrealistically pissed off over the fact that someone spiked the punch. Just so much of the escalation of violence, and mounting tensions revolve around that one point. Maybe relax a little? It's a party. You're supposed to be having fun? It's literally called recreational drugs, of which you all seem to be no strangers. Another point, you'd think somebody would have the wherewithal to call the cops when things really started to escalate, like the mother, for example. Oh, what, is the reception too bad? Did you all drop your phones down the toilet as some sort of dancers pact? I don't want to hear it. Call the damn cops, you deadbeat mom. Cell phones really do ruin most shock oriented films these days, and honestly, I love that fact.

To sum it up, like most Gaspar Noe films, this film is an experience. Don't look for realism. Don't look for purpose. Most of all, don't go convincing yourself that it's better than it is, just because it was directed by the guy who directed Seul Contre Tous. This is D list horror level stuff with a few pretentious camera angles. Wooptidoo. It doesn't deserve a decimal above 4 stars. It's a rollercoaster ride full of unlikeable disposable characters who you may be able to relate to on the most superficial of all levels, and not much else. Is it worth the experience? Sure... and let us never speak of this monstrosity again.

Ok, so I had no idea what to expect going into this. I was expecting bombs... I was expecting a sort of terrorist plot. Nope. It's a dramatization of a murder trial embodying the culture clash of our age: the insiders vs. The outsiders. It's based on a true story... Who cares? That doesn't make it a good movie, OR a bad movie. Most importantly, that doesn't make it a TRUTHFUL movie. It's a portrayal, and as such, I'm mostly going to be critiquing the movie based on what it portrays.

The movie almost unequivocally portrays the punks as the good guys. They're just free spirits; they're SO misunderstood, doncha know? If only these mean awful jocks would just leave them alone. Does that sound like a true to life portrayal? It shouldn't... When I think of punks I think of GG Alin... an imbecile... a loser... a lowlife... a menace to society who created chaos everywhere he went, and then of course there is the boutique version of a punk, who GG Alin himself describes: someone who gloms onto the aesthetic and is there as a casual observer, to partake in the freakshow. GG Alin HATED those people, and that's a valid distinction, because I think realistically, the real life punks that this film is based around were probably somewhere in the middle.

The worst thing the punks are depicted doing in the film is petty vandalism in the form of graffiti. They're NEVER the aggressors; they're ALWAYS the aggressed. I don't believe that at all. For example, the scene with the jock in his dress shirt and tie mouthing off at the punks for no reason, calling him a f_gg_t. I don't believe that's happening. I just don't. The guy with the tie is never the one instigating for no reason. That scene comes across super weird to me.

First of all, I share both perspectives to a certain degree. As a young man, I used to dress a bit goth/punk, but I was very much the socially responsible type. I hated the idea of vandalism; I was surrounded by upper class people, but I was also a bit shipless, and rudderless with no real career aspirations. Either way, I DID get people insulting me or making fun of me because of the way I dressed, and here's the thing about that. It never escalated.

If you're a wannabe tough guy, it doesn't matter how you dress, you will get into a lot of fights. I almost never had someone just randomly call me a f_gg_t. That's never where it starts. If someone calls you a f_gg_t, 9 times out of 10, it's because you're acting a fool in public. Just One time someone called me a c__t for no reason. Do you stop and deal with the idiot who clearly has a problem? No, you just keep walking. You're not a bigger man for wasting your time on some lowlife... unless you too are a lowlife. Long story short, I don't believe the portrayal in the diner scene AT ALL.

I also don't believe one solo punk is going to square off against 20 jocks and get his ass kicked, just to make a point, and if he does, I don't believe he's walking away from that in one piece unless he was the aggressor, and they barely put their hands on him. You're not getting stomped on the ground, for 60 seconds straight, and walking away triumphantly like you just proved a point. I don't believe anyone is putting themselves in that situation unless they know they're going to walk away safely, which implies that they were probably the aggressor.

I also don't believe that 6 punks are going to engage in a free-for-all brawl with 30 jocks, and expect to be triumphant. You're not showing up for that unless you're pretty sure that most of those 30 jocks won't lay their hands on you, and again if it was TRULY a free for all brawl, those 6 punks aren't walking away. After watching this movie, my impression at face value is that you had a tit for tat type of feud between two groups, and the punks escalated it, dragging in a whole lot of people who really had nothing to do with the core beef between both groups. That's just the only scenario that makes sense, and I feel like any true-to-life dynamic here, was very inaccurately portrayed.

Now let's get on to the portrayal of the cops. This one in particular bothered me. I'm not a fan of cops. I actually quite dislike cops. I dislike the TYPE of person who becomes a cop, and I dislike how the organization so easily lends itself to corrupt behavior. That being said, I don't believe that a whole squad of cops is going to raid someone's house without a warrant. Yeah you do have loosey goosey situations where a cop will drag someone out of their home, but you're not getting a whole squad of cops conspiring together against all regulations. I just don't believe it.

Even a bad cop understands that his job is to uphold the law, and he knows that he has to keep up that appearance. I think back to when Rebel News had a police raid attempted on their airbnb in Montreal. Montreal cops are notoriously the most corrupt cops in Canada, but even they wouldn't commit trespass without a warrant. It's just such a bridge too far. That, and the cop so brazenly molesting the guy's girlfriend. I just don't believe any of it. The portrayal is just so categorically one sided. You've got these people who call themselves anarchists. "Oh woe is me, I'm such a victim, why can't the world just let me LIVE." Sorry, I don't believe it. What goes around comes around more often than not.

As to the trial itself, to start off, I really had a good cringe over the prosecutor's quivering voice, as he's making his impassioned plea for the deceased punk who got hit by the car. Buddy, you're overdoing it. Pull yourself together. I'm not even blaming the actor, if anything that just shows you how intentionally exaggerated the director's one sided portrayal of this real life incident was. Ultimately the verdict of "manslaughter" was a just verdict... OBVIOUSLY.

The director wants you to believe that this trial was a colossal injustice of our time. Let's at least break it down for what it was... The punks showed up to fight people. That's intent. They showed up with weapons that could potentially KILL someone. That means they were willing participants in an event that could have very easily led to someone's death (which it did). There were a whole lot of people there who (probably) had nothing to do with the dispute, despite the portrayal, at least that's my intuition as outlined earlier, so a lot of innocent bystanders were probably involved.

One of the punks died as a result of getting hit by a car. Does that, in and of itself mean he was a victim? Again, what the HELL were they doing there? The punks came there wielding weapons. Did they strike anyone with those weapons? If yes, that can easily be portrayed as attempted murder too... RIGHT? Sorry, but that's the law, and it's totally just.

Again back to my personal real life experience with stuff like this; let's give the benefit of a doubt and say the punks were being harassed. If you want to be a tough guy, you can get into fights all day long if that's the path you want to go down. If you are targeted by a lowlife, and you decide to become a lowlife too, you're no longer a victim. You're a participant. That's how that works, and that's how that SHOULD work. If you get assaulted, it's not self defence to show up at the person's house 3 hours later, and threaten them and all their friends. Get a hold of yourselves...

Moreover, as far as you can tell from this very one sided portrayal of a movie, the punks don't even have jobs or any reliable sources of income. They're behind on their rent, verging on being squatters. One very key aspect of the penal system is the idea of rehabilitation, so I'm very sorry, but no, it's not corrupt to see that a rich kid convicted of manslaughter in a mutually CONSENSUAL altercation where deadly weapons are involved on both sides, does no jail time, when he has a very high probability of leading a strait and narrow life. In my opinion it's a very mediocre and pompous film that very likely does not do justice to the true nature of the case it is seeking to depict.

I think it's important to call it out for what it is, even if IMDB doesn't think you should be allowed to use that word, which in and of itself I find VERY very weird. Oh no, we're gonna risk offending THOSE people. Heaven forfend. OH NO. So, to be clear, I'm not someone who has a problem with people portraying this type of subject matter in art. Do I think this film is trying to normalize something that's universally vilified? Yes. Do I think it will degrade society if this type of thing is successfully normalized? Absolutely, but from an artistic point of view, films like this absolutely have the right to exist, and they're even useful. Moreover, whatever my personal opinion is about the subject, it has no bearing on the quality of the film itself.

As far as the dialogue goes, it's actually pretty well written. It's definitely a cut above. The subject matter is INTERESTING; the way the plot plays out is somewhat plausible, the limits of human emotion and interaction being pushed to some degree, and the subject matter is handled in a way that actually carries a lot of tension, and to me personally, gives me a sense of looming dread. Like, will he or won't he? Where is this going to go? Because you KNOW that if a stranger KIDNAPS a young girl, it CAN'T go anywhere good. Now, if you watched this film, and it BOTHERS you that I said that, something so obvious, something so incontrovertible, which it DOES seem to bother a great deal many people who watched this, based on the way certain reviews have been scored. That, in and of itself underscores the problem with what this film normalizes, because it emboldens p_d_'s by giving them a voice for something that is completely and categorically untenable. Even the film itself portrays this type of relationship as untenable. That's why the ending is a grief stricken ending. Could it have ended ANY other way? NO. That's the point, but that's NEVER going to be the takeaway for THAT particular group of people, which is why it's so important to be unequivocal about what this film is putting across.

The male protagonist in this film is indeed a p_d_. It's very unequivocal, and for me personally, extremely blatant right off the bat. Granted, the plot progresses in such a way specifically designed so that a lot of people will give him the benefit of a doubt at first. This is actually somewhat insidious to a degree, because it's trying to get you to like him. It humanizes him, and because of the slow drip of information that the viewer gets, a lot of people will 1) be in denial of what he is, or 2) be sympathetic. That being said, the p_d_ premise is COMPLETELY implied. There's actually no direct evidence WHATSOEVER that that is what he is, but as human beings, intuitively, you know better. It's the same reason why you can tell someone is gay just by the expression on their face, a lot of the time, and frankly, why you can tell if someone you meet is a total creep, just from their vibe. There's something off: their mannerisms, their speech patterns, the circumstance. You couldn't prove it in a court of law, but you KNOW it intuitively, based on circumstance and likelihood. If you meet a p_d_, you'll get the feeling, from the second you lay eyes on them, whether you can identify it for what it is or not. It's like gay, but different, and here I mean someone who's interested in very YOUNG children, specifically.

So, how do we know? Ok, so let's break it down. The male protag says "It will LOOK like I kidnapped you." First of all, no... You DID kidnap her. You're not her legal guardian. Parents have rights; you took her without her parent's consent, and because she's a minor, she was not able to consent to it of her own accord (Duh). Any person of average intelligence would know that, and therefore, only a p_d_ would knowingly put himself in that position, knowing how society would perceive him for it. He's 45 years old, no kids of his own. I thought about this at length. The only thing that would CONCEIVABLY make sense as a non sexual or pseudo-sexual motive is, he had a terminal illness, had only a couple months to live, and he regretted not having kids. Otherwise, you want to mentor kids? Become a big brother. Become a teacher. Become a coach. If you want to be a mentor to kids, there are MANY options that are wholesome, and legal, so only someone with either nefarious intent, or aberrant impulses would put himself in such a serious legal predicament, for really very little reward, in a wholesome context.

As the film progresses you get more and more clues that make it very hard to deny it for what it is. The way he calls her "beautiful." The way he says he feels absolutely nothing for the adult woman in his life. When he says to the little girl. "You're going to outgrow me." Why would she "outgrow you," ya child abducting creep. It is what it is, even though there's no smoking gun evidence. The only question now is, did the male protag actually have any sexual contact with the young girl? The circumstantial evidence would actually suggest that no they didn't, but either way, this is where the film starts to transgress into what I consider much more gross territory.

When the young girl catches him having sex with the woman, she then throws a fit yelling "You view me as just a little kid!" That's definitely weird. So you're "just a kid," and that's what you think of when you see him having sex with a woman. Why would those two things be connected? It's literally IMPOSSIBLE to make that connection, unless the little girl envisioned herself entering into a sexual relationship with the male protag. Also towards the end when she says "Maybe people would understand. It's love. That's all it is." So he's not JUST a friend and older mentor. In HER mind, they're lovers. A kid wouldn't talk about it that way, if they were just friends. It would feel awkward and uncomfortable. Again, couldn't prove it in a court of law, but this is what we know intuitively about normal human behavior.

To me this is a bit gross, because the obvious implication is that a child can consent, and that the young girl is the one who wants it to go further, in a context that's actually very forced. The leap between them just being friends and seeing the countryside, to being "in love," from the young girl's perspective, happens in a VERY short time. They're effectively inserting this message into the film, which I think in a way backfires, just by showing you how forced and inorganic any such relationship could EVER possibly be.

I then had to ask myself another serious question, because it's all well and good to say all the things I've said, but how would I ACTUALLY deal with it in the real world? If my daughter got offered the starring role in this film, would I allow it? I don't think I could live with myself if I denied my daughter an opportunity like that, because I know what a boost any type of controversial film is for a young actor, but I wouldn't be happy about it. It's not child abuse, but I do think it's somewhat exploitative of Oona Lawrence to have her playing into this forced narrative. So basically with this question, I'm speaking to the fact that yes, children have SOME ability to consent, but at a much diminished capacity, so you HAVE to offer guidance, as a parent, and no, a random stranger is not someone who can fill that role. People who try to fill that role artificially, are often groomers like the male protagonist in this film. If there's any message to take away from this film, it's probably that. He was only able to abduct the girl because she came from a broken home, and had no friends, which is very often the case in real life situations of child exploitation.

Oona Lawrence was extremely well cast, by the way. She has a natural way about her that really makes the most of the material. There's one scene that stuck out in particular to me though. The male protagonist is holding her extremely tight and close him, with their faces very close together as they're chatting. This embrace is very long. He just doesn't want to let her go, doesn't want the moment to end, which may be symbolic. Throughout this embrace, Oona Lawrence is very clearly uncomfortable. She has her head tilted away from him ever so slightly. She's leaning away basically, when her character should actually be leaning in. It's very subtle, but anyone who understands non verbal queues can very blatantly see that she's displaying physically closed-off body language, and in a very blatant way I think that serves as a great example of REALITY vs the contrived fantasy of forbidden love that this film seeks to portray.

No, if you kidnap a preteen girl, she's not going to fall in love with you, and yes, she's going to feel physically repelled if you invade her physical space. She's not going to lean in. She's going to lean away like Oona Lawrence, as a natural inescapable reaction that is very difficult to suppress. That's the problem with the message that this film puts across insofar as how they try to put the consent issue onto the child character. It's bit like how you have these public flashers on transit, who expose themselves, or rub up against women, and convince themselves that the woman secretly likes it, or wants it. That's the type of person this film is emboldening. We shouldn't mince words about that, and frankly, I question why anyone in their right mind would want to write, produce, and direct a film like this. The basic premise is fine. Again, my problem is when they take it to the point where the young girl is in love with the p_d_ when we don't convincingly see the relationship develop in that way. It just seems like someone's perverted p_d_ fantasy at that point.