Tha_rick-me

The thematics of "Tirza" revolve around the principle of the 'dead white man'. The typical man who seems denied to the elite of living men: this is Jörgen Hofmeester. He is an insignificant, almost banal man whose world further collapses when his favorite daughter, Tirza, graduates and leaves with her Morrocan boyfriend for Namibia. Upon not hearing a word from her after the goodbye, he decides to travel after her to Windhoek.

What follows is an enormous quest for significance, for his daughter and for a center for misguided human beings like himself, on which he encounters only more disappointment, insignificance and errancy. Based on a novel by Anton Grunberg, this movie is highly literary and philosophical in non-aesthetic and non-sentimental ways. From the bitterness of a 9-year-old child prostitute to the coherence of his lives in both the Netherlands and Namibia; everything is masterfully dissected and analyzed from an absolutely merciless point of view.

No heroes here, no villains, because the only villain, as we know, is the human psyche. Grunberg, as well as screenwriter/director Van den Berg, clearly knows how to make surrealism realistic and symbolism natural. This is a completely disoriented movie and after seeing it, it will be difficult to know where the toilets of the cinema are.

As for the cinematography: it is splendid. Cold colors make even the sunlit Namibia look sinister and the quite contrasted colors give the film an extra dimension: not only its visuals are contrasted, but so are its characters. Subtle references to The Shining, Paris;Texas and many other films must be noted.

The performances are engaging and often quite funny: Sylvia Hoeks playing a girl 9 years her minor is the light-bulb in all this and you can sympathize with this sympathetic yet unsure girl. She may be the only thing which is significant in this story. It's understandable that Jörgens feelings for her surpass fatherhood.

And yes... it really is a sin. It is a sin to remake John Carpenter's masterpiece of horror, which was as scary back then as it is today. Firstly, let's analyze why the 1978 original Halloween was such a masterpiece. Mr. Carpenter and Mrs. Hill managed to write a horror flick with a villain so evil that he (if we can refer to it as him) did not have any reason nor ratio, and he needed neither of them. Something like The Shape (a.k.a. Michael Myers) is like the Charlie Chaplin of horror. Its pale mask, its pointy hair, its workman's outfit... It is a force of unimaginable evil, as one can say that every human being has certain ethics. No, the shape has none. Mr. Carpenter's camera-work was one of the best ever seen in horror cinema (along with its none-slasher counterpart, Kubrick's masterful 'The Shining). He doesn't need to show The Shape, he wants us to see what it sees. It makes you feel sick when you jump to the conclusion that you murdered Judith Myers. When he doesn't show us the events as seen by the killer, he is inventive enough to just introduce a shoulder, a shadow, a glimpse of evil, and we know that we're in some serious trouble. The challenging cinematography and the realistic script are even more ominous ("He's 87!" "He still can look" "Probably the only thing he can do"). The Shape in this movie is menacing and ominous, no big budget, but great effect.

Now, the 2007 re-imagining-re-make. The quite realistic dialogue has been replaced by hundreds of f-bombs, wannabe-drama and uninventiveness, as if it were obligatory in a modern day horror movie. The camera-work was replaced by gritty, ugly and direct camera, which removed practically every thread from the film. The brave but quite dull and square Laurie was replaced by an uninspired performance by Scout Taylor-Compton. The original Dr. Loomis, played by the great Donald Pleasence, was replaced by Malcom McDowell. Now, McDowell is a great actor, but only when playing a bad protagonist himself (i.e. A Clockwork Orange). Talking about bad protagonists, during the original Halloween franchise (which generally sucked, except Halloween, Halloween 2 and H20), Michael Myers became more of a protagonist, everyone came to see him killing people. This concept was further exploited in the remake, as Mr. Zombie seems to want us to pity Michael Myers, to give him a reason. It isn't his fault, but another abusive character's. Remember, Mr. Zombie, Michael Myers used to be an antagonist who killed and stalked people we even used to try to care about, we don't pity Myers, for he is a mindless evil force. Rob Zombie, by showing the childhood of the troubled Michael Myers, sucked all the energy out of the movie, whereas the original was almost shot in the time it actually took place (inside 2-3 hours somewhat, only a few shortcuts), while the new one takes place in about 16 years, which makes the remake not only unimaginative and ruined, but also dull.

It's a sin... (remember that, Mr. McDowell?)

1,8 for the cool sound of mr. Zombies name.