Defenceless: A Blood Symphony

There's no real easy way to describe DEFENCELESS. Surely it's one of the most hypnotising, most brutal and savage films to see release in a long time. And that is terrific news. This is the way films of this genre should be made. Somewhere between true high-art and suspense, Savage manages to keep the viewer on the edge of their seats, using some breathtaking imagery and the amazing feat (these days) of no dialogue. Produced and filmed in a country which has no real support or backing for this kind of film, Savage has to be congratulated for such a fine job. Here's hoping he moves from strength to strength, and can bring further fine tales like this to the screen soon.

This "silent" feature (there is an amazing soundtrack, but there is not one word of dialogue) from director Savage (who also co-produced, wrote, photographed and edited) is a huge surprise and clearly his most personal, uncompromising work.

Though it's a revenge yarn, there's not a single other movie I can compare it to.

It's beautifully photographed (by Savage himself) and walks a very delicate line between art-house, exploitation and humanistic drama. The combination, which shouldn't work on paper, works beautifully here because of the director's sheer forcefulness of vision.

Susanne Hauscchmid is The Woman, a mother and environmental campaigner whose life is destroyed by the brutal actions of property developers. Her performance, virtually mute, is certainly one of the year's best and it's interesting to know that Hausschmid also produced the film with Savage and a tiny crew.

Child actor Bethany Fisher also delivers a superb performance as a young girl who befriends the battered Woman in a portion of the film that feels unlike anything the director has attempted before. It must be said that the director's obsession with the ocean, cemeteries and broken dolls is amped right up in this confronting but highly satisfying fantasy. Also amped up is the director's take-no-prisoners approach to the staging of grotesque but cinematic ally justified sexual violence. Additionally, one scene of self-mutilation involving breast slicing will be quite beyond the pale for most viewers.

The film won Best Film, Best Cinematography and Best Actress at the recent Melbourne Underground Film Festival. It's a remarkable achievement for sustaining its dialogue-free structure over ninety-eight minutes and re-inventing a long-lost cinematic tradition.

But be warned: Its staggering beauty is contrasted with equally staggering brutality and horror.

Savage's best so far.

I really wanted to like "Defenceless" but it's a movie that somehow isn't a sum of its parts. While the plot is relatively straightforward, the film's strength should come from its stylistic approach. This is a movie without dialogue - the powerful imagery conveys the tale, accompanied by a largely classical soundtrack.

For gorehounds, there is some over-the-top violence. As with Savage's earlier "Marauders", some of this is taboo breaking but thankfully the more controversial deaths are off-screen.

The beautiful Susanne Hausschmid is excellent as the lead, "The Woman". Without going into too much detail, this is a character who has to undergo a fair amount of torment, both physical and mental, during the course of the film. Hausschmid conveys what's going on in her mind brilliantly.

Yet, despite its strengths, I was left feeling a tad empty after watching "Defenceless". I've not been able to warm to Savage's style.

7 out of 10. Missing a certain something but an interesting exercise in cinema.

Have you ever wondered how a magician pulls off a trick?

If you watch "Defenceless", then expect to marvel in similar fashion, but do not expect any answers. Mr Savage has finally pulled a rabbit from his hat that has many of us scratching our heads. How did he do it? How on earth did the man manage to sustain interest for 98 minutes with no dialogue? Because Mr Savage has finally delivered a work which leaves us in no doubt as to the importance of story -- and what can be achieved in we concentrate on "the story". The story. And, still again, "The Story".

"Defenceless" reminds me of the origins of "story". When a tale was told with grunts by pre-historic men in caves. Stick figures on walls. No special effects, no adr, no computers. Just story.

How did he do it? By telling us a tale the old fashioned way. Not unlike the kind Hal Ashby and Bob Rafaelson used to tell in the sixties and seventies, but even they used some dialogue. Mr Savage does not use any. I love dialogue. Always have. Always will. I plot David Mamet like a nautical dove plots the course pf ancient mariners in times gone by. But, with "Defenceless", I did not need it.

The story was all.

How did he do it? Ask not. Any more than you would ask why pasta never tastes the same away from home as it does when you make it yourself. And, like a master chef, Mr Savage has finally delivered his piece de resistance: a meal fit for kings.

The wonderful thing is, that I suspect "Defenceless" is the "appetiser". The main course is yet to come. I am hungry for more, and in truth, cannot wait.

This is going to polarize audiences because half the population out there hate nothing more than someone with a personal vision. The other half admire it. Reviews on here are positive so far, but this was slammed by Variety, and i can understand why. It's an unapologetic blend of high art and grotesque exploitation. You can't categorize it. The wife threatened to walk out of the Monday afternoon screening, but didn't make good on her threat. It took me a while to get comfortable with its dialog-free narrative, but I emerged a true admirer. The set-up is quite straightforward, although the complications mount. A woman, played by a beautiful Australian actress named Susanne Hausschmid (who was new to me), is murdered by real estate developers. She then takes revenge on them -- while dead. Yes, dead! Director Mark Savage hasn't made a film that will please all fans of bloody revenge movies because he's working from his own formula, not one thirty years old. The film has a strong French influence (a very Eric Rohmer-like seduction scene) and isn't possible to categorize. Is it horror? Partly. Is it art-house? Partly. For God's sakes, does it really matter? Do we have to know what it is? It's very different. And very explicit at times. Most importantly, it's highly individualistic. That's why it won't be loved by many. Nobody loves an orphan.