Michael

Loosely based on a horrific true story of an Austrian man who kept a girl in his cellar for the best part of two decades, 'Michael' is a film I avoided watching for a long time in part because I feared it would simply prove too unpleasant. In fact, it's watchable and (mostly) understated: its (fictional) villain less a pure monster, more just an isolated person who decides to set up their own life the way they want to, and to keep a child as one would keep a pet. Even then, his incapacity for emotion (towards the child, or indeed, for anybody else) is striking, which partly explains his appalling actions. I don't know how the details of this story reflect on the actual tale; but it seems a believable portrait of how someone could come to act in this way. The film is low budget: some of the scenes may be shot as they are to save filming them more expensively, although the advantage is that the audience is encouraged to concentrate on what matters, not some lush background. The ending is premature disappointing dramatically but what's more interesting is how much I cared to see what happened next: 'Michael' might not literally be docu-drama, but it convinces as a portrait of evil as the absence of empathy.

First let's say it, "Yikes". This is a minutely-observed, low-keyed, dispassionate movie about the domestic life of a pedophile and the little boy he keeps captive in his basement. (Again, "Yikes"). But it is certainly not without wit, and a kind of wry "fly on the wall" style that keeps one engaged even though the proceedings are kept on a low boil intentionally. (Thank God). The phrase "the banality of evil", comes to mind constantly, and I think it is not entirely coincidental that this is an Austrian film. The lack of histrionics, however, does not mean that the film lacks drama. Certainly not…in fact it does create , at times, an almost unbearable tension. It has been compared many times to Haneke's "Funny Games", but in fact I find it far more subversive than that, as the Haneke film depends very much on a Brechtian "alienation" effect, whereby the filmmaker lets his audience know that he is intentionally manipulating them. "Michael" provides no easy "outs", and is, to my mind, a far more disturbing, compelling exercise. Truly a shocker, and extraordinarily well-done. Bravo. (But it is not for the timid).

So, this movie is about a pedophile who's keeping a child in his basement. It's such a terrifying setup that initially I decided against seeing it. Then I read some very positive media reviews, which also mentioned there was nothing graphic, and so I decided to give it a go. (They also called it "darkly humorous", which I didn't see at all.)

When I first saw the kid's face, I almost turned it off- like I said, this is an extremely disturbing premise. I actually kind of wish I did; I had been expecting something different, like a police scenario, or some back story about him (we don't get any history of Michael or Wolfgang.) Once you see Wolfgang, you just have to watch and hope he is going to end up better off. I couldn't turn off the movie with him in that situation (yes, I know it's not real, but we also know things like this do happen in the real world.)

But rest assured there is no sexual contact between the man and the boy pictured in the movie- not even hugs or embraces- even though there's no doubt about what's going on. There is one scene where Michael takes out his penis, but it's about six feet away from Wolfgang, and it's not a sexual thing- he's actually making a weird joke (and it was shot in split screen so the young actor wasn't present for it.) The only explicit violence is against Michael, so you don't care, and even then it's not graphic.

Michael is not only a pedophile, but as far as I can tell, a sociopath. This is a different representation of a pedophile than Todd Solonz's "Happiness" where the pedophile does seem to have empathy and shame. Michael is absolutely without either of these emotions. There's also something very "off" about him (you know, besides being a sociopathic pedophile), as shown in his social life and sense of humor.

The movie is slow but not boring. It's very taut, and the ending had me holding my breath to see what would happen. (Some have said it's ambiguous, I didn't think so, but if you read the comments about the movie you'll get the director's view of what the ending was supposed to mean.) I wanted more denouement, but the comments also explain why the director chose to end the movie where he did. The acting is absolutely amazing. Michael Fuith is mesmerizing and brings out the banality of evil very skilfully.

I usually do well with disturbing movies, but this was a stretch for me. I avoid anything with graphic violence against children, and this does indeed fit that criterion, but it is about something so terrible that anyone who is not disturbed has something wrong with them, in my opinion. That said, I think people can still appreciate this movie as a well-written and well-acted one. I wouldn't recommend this for anyone with children; I just can't imagine having a child and watching this movie.

OK, that's a very accusatory title to put to a review of a film, but I don't think that I have ever been so sure about how a film would end than I was during the closing 20 minutes of "Michael". That is not to say that I don't think that the film should have ended the way that it did, it's just that I was so sure of what the final frames would consist of. I was absolutely spot on. "Michael" is a very well made film, for sure, but if you're expecting anything anywhere near as ambiguous or intelligent as even the weakest Haneke film, prepare for a disappointment. I do look forward to seeing what Markus Schleinzer does next as he clearly has a talent for directing films with a disturbing subject matter, but if he has a masterpiece within him, "Michael" certainly isn't it.

Decent film, but must try harder to achieve greatness.

This film is an incredible, original and totally unexpected piece of work. Given the subject matter audiences may assume that this would be pure exploitation or self-consciously 'dark' or 'edgy' but the film is full of ambiguity and subtlety and the director does an amazing job of keeping distant and matter-of-fact about the characters without leering or over-dramatics. Recently there have been a number of films which attempt (sometimes desperately) to be disturbing or provocative with degrees of explicitness , the originality of Michael is it's lack of explicitness or exploitation (if it was any other form of relationship it would be rated PG) which gives it a unique and unsettling tone. The film is full of little details and memorable moments which linger and is closed by an unexpected ending which moves from tense to calm then back to tense, all with a subtlety and pace alien to Hollywood.