The Living and the Dead

After seeing the list of superlatives and awards on the DVD cover, I figured that this would be a pretty safe watch. In order to keep from spoiling my enjoyment of movies, I often try to walk into them without knowing much of anything (which seems to frustrate other people sometimes when they ask what I'm watching); so, when I started watching this movie, I figured it was probably about vampires or zombies or something. Wow, was I totally wrong! It's actually more of a tragedy about mental illness than anything else, though it's also got some surrealist and absurdist elements. That might put off some people. As a huge fan of David Lynch, I recognized that the surreal scenes were kind of homages/ripoffs of his work, but, really, it didn't bother me nearly as much as it apparently did some other Lynch fans (and, of course, surrealism will always have its detractors, calling it pretentious or stupid). In particular, one dream sequence, where a character has a strange, symbolism-laden conversation with a nightmare version of Zippy the Pinhead, reminded me VERY strongly of Lost Highway. I'm sure fellow Lynch fans know the scene that I'm talking about ("That's f***ing crazy, man."). Regardless, I liked the scene, and I thought it was done well. It's always nice to see people being influenced by Lynch, even if they're taking the influence a *bit* too far, into territory that might involve lawyers, if it were a different form of media.

Moving on...

The acting was stellar. I totally bought each and every character. The directing was a bit, shall we say, stylistic. I suppose it might not be everyone's cup of tea. Again, while it was slightly derivative of the style of other directors (someone is apparently a Darren Aronofsky fanboy), I liked it. The plot was told from a combination Memento and Repulsion viewpoint, mixing the out-of-order scenes of Memento with the unreliable narrator from Repulsion. In fact, the whole movie seems to take some major hints from Repulsion, while not being nearly so much of a outright homage; instead, individual scenes and the overall theme remind me of that movie.

So, what are we left with? A rather strange potpourri of Lynch, Aronofsky, Polanksi, Nolan, and perhaps even a bit of Kubrick thrown in. Does it work? Yes. Is it highly derivative of other directors? Yes. Are there strange plot holes, that are never really explained (why is there only one phone in such a huge house, and why doesn't the wife have a cell phone? Why did the father leave before the arrival of the nurse? Why did... and so on)? Oh, yes, definitely. Perhaps you'll be able to forgive all these issues. Perhaps not. If you can, then I think you'll like this movie. It's powerful and intriguing.

If the director can make a movie that is more original, in his own style, and work on reducing the number of bizarre plot holes that make no sense, I will become a fan. He could really have a strong future.

I think it would be fair to say The Living and the Dead had me held in some sort of blind terror for more often than not. The film is so outrageous in the places it goes and the manner in which it acts when it gets there, that it's impossible to merely put aside the watching experience having seen it. The film is a freak-show, yes, of characters; visual tricks and constructed scares, but a calculated and carefully constructed one: one that I think will tap into a nerve within, whether you're a veteran of many-a horror films or not. The film is something like a little under an hour and half long, but when it had ended, felt as if it had clocked in at something like three hours; such is the grip of terror and unease I was in. Like a hypnosis session in which you're out for the count for all of about thirty minutes, but the deep-rooted places you may have been to during that time unearthing such discomfort and a sense of feeling, that the whole process feels like half a day's gone by.

The film's premise sees it set up a perilous exchange between a middle aged mother and her twenty-something son in a large, pre-modern and isolated house in the country. She's physically unwell, suffering from some sort of extreme form of M.E. whilst he's a scatty, eccentric schizophrenic whose mannerism; movements and vocal tone is wildly inconsistent and unnerving. The mother is Nancy (Fahy), the son is James (Bill) and the family name is Brocklebank; something that I think instills a certain amount of pride into the household as father and husband of the piece Donald (Lloyd-Pack) seems to furiously defend them and their right to house there by way of a number of conversations over the phone with someone. It's this someone Donald must leave the property to venture out and see, and it's from here that most of the trouble unfolds.

The film's tone is unbearably downbeat, beginning in the present tense with a greyed out Donald covered in injuries as he observes an ambulance advance down his property's long, lonely driveway towards him. His face is glum, rueful and regretful and a perfect teeing up for the events the film covers in instilling a sense that something's up: he's thinking that leaving that final time was a big mistake. In flashing back to better times, certainly the best times either of these characters find themselves in throughout the film, it's revealed Donald cared for both his wife and son accordingly; with the early exchanges coming across as calm and methodical in their feeling and construction what with static camera work and long takes. This is in stark contrast to when James takes over as the self proclaimed "man of the house", a title actor Leo Bill does well in his character's mixture of pleading and exclaiming, in what is a desperate attempt to try and prove to his parents that he's able to take on responsibility. The danger signs in this lie within the fact his strict medication diet of various pills and vaccine shots sit uneasily with the fact he's commanded by his father to hide from visitors and avoid the newspaper, instilling a certain child-like sensibility to him and acting as triggers to stoke a fire of warning.

Leo Bill plays James as a sort of pastiche of Rik Mayall's character from popular 1990's British TV show 'Bottom', only rendered schizophrenic and far more mentally ill. Early on, I wondered if the man had an agenda; whether or not he was at all homicidal and indeed hated his mother which added to an intense element of unease. As the film switches perspectives in carer, a gradual shift in emphasis onto James becomes apparent in the conventions writer/director Simon Rumley applies. In switching from a mainly static camera complete with long takes which took prior precedence, Rumley then throws sped-up footage; bizarre angles; editing as well as distorted sound effects which amalgamate to form odd music into the mix, getting across a sense of chaos and somebody seriously ill-suited for the task. Rumley's tactics of applying a disorientating and off the wall aesthetic to most of the scenes James' acts as carer beautifully but disturbingly conflicts in a highly effective manner with this large, decrepit, centuries old manor house with which you do not associate the given conventions.

There are killings in the film; somebody gets knifed and there's a fair degree of blood running on a premise that sees it bed down in one place as terror and uncanniness plays out, but don't let that lead you to think this is a Halloween sequel or some similarly underwhelming slasher film. One sequence which goes a long way in highlighting this odd combination of techniques and conventions to actually form something half-decent occurs nearer the end when, isolated and on their own, a young female supporting character creeps through the dark passages and corridors of the home unaware of what lurks around them but knowledgeable that there's a male lead, somewhere, who could very well react negatively if he sees or finds her. The whole thing is constructed like an age-old sequence in a slasher-sub genre flick, but the film sets a bar far higher. Roger Lloyd-Pack does a superb job, banishing any lingering memory you might have of him in a prior comedic role as we observe his envisaging of what might very well have gone on during his absence. Rumley's film is not all about shocks and scares; a sequence later on in which many family members have gathered in the house's main area is shot from high on up in the rafters, the camera just too embarrassed or ashamed to go to ground level and capture these people's expressions and reactions. I found The Living and the Dead to be a smart and affecting film.

This is possibly the worst film i have ever seen. I actually saw the premiere in Rotterdam Film Festival, and whilst many people walked out I stayed to the bitter end. But that was mainly because I didn't want to lose my friends. Self indulgent is a word often overused in the arts, and some of the best music and film is incredibly self indulgent, but behind that indulgence there is often genius. Unfortunately here there is nothing, not even a plot. The mistake the director Simon Rumley makes is to dwell on the suffering of the characters, all in a kind of 'gross out' adolescent way, without any insight, or any freshness. All the best films now tend not to be so mawkish, making The Living and The Dead seem like a bad student project from the 1970s. There's no lightness of touch here and no humour. Perhaps we're supposed to laugh at mentalist James in the same way we laugh at Julian Donkey Boy. But he's just not that funny and he has none of the demented hilarity of Donkey Boy. Like the rest of the cast, he's just a stereotype, an extremely annoying stereotype. All you'll learn from The Living and The Dead is that some people clearly have much more money than sense. And I'm not talking about any of the characters in the film here.

Imagine a retelling of "The Shining" (1980) by Stanley Kubrick - but instead of Steven King's menacing snow storm and ghosts of the dead at the Overlook Hotel - this nuclear family is threatened by the bankruptcy of the landed aristocracy by health care, death by terminal cancer, and an over-protected adult son who is permanently child-like and requires vast infusions of anti-psychotics. Add to this helplessness, depression, anxiety, guilt, anger, and an oedipal-complex repressed by English manners, and you have the explosive makings for "The Living and the Dead" (2006).

Kubrick's famous emotional distance from the story is replaced by Rumley's intense personal need to pull the audience into the madness which modern medicine creates with false hopes and budget efficiencies, and especially, its patent inability to assist the emotional needs of both the terminal patient and their families. Rumley succeeds where others fear to tread by plunging the audience into the thick of it.

On the Cover of the rental DVD it said that is was one of the best movie some movie critic had ever seen. I have to say that I love movies that contain a certain depth and make you think and the quotes on the cover promised just that. I actually had to start this movie twice because I stopped it at the first try after 15 minutes not being able to concentrate on the "storyline"(there actually is not really much of a storyline to begin with).What I am trying to get across is that this is just not a movie that captures you in the first couple of minutes and also this is definitely not a horror movie. The horror is supposedly rooted in the fact that there are two very sick people (one mentally and one physically) that are locked in together and try to care for each other.

The deranged or mentally ill son might be portrayed in a realistic fashion but that does not make it less annoying to watch his character rummage through this movie. What I found most annoying is the overuse of fast paced pictures combined with nasty techno music. I do get it that this is meant to emphasize his progressing madness but I would say that the audience would have understood this without using this stylistic device 5 times in a row. Another maddening element are certain jumps in the time line that make it even harder to follow the already chaotic "storyline" I found also utterly unrealistic that a concerned father would leave his terminally ill wive and his deranged son who, as he notes earlier is "not very good with strange people".

Altogether a very unpleasant movie not only because of its content but because it is very hard to follow and even harder to connect to any of the characters portrayed in it!