→ April 22, 2021
→ By

A Sun.

The gripping Taiwanese neo-noir film A Sun mostly escaped critical notice in 2020 after hitting Netflix last January, only coming to broader attention when Variety critic Peter Debruge named it the best film of 2020. Even now, it has just 15 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, only three from major U.S.-based outlets, despite making the short list for the Academy Award for Best International Feature. It should have advanced to the final five, because it’s one of the best films I’ve seen from 2020, wrapping a 21st century crime drama and a story of family tragedy ripped out of 19th century Brit Lit together in a strange and totally compelling picture.

A Sun starts out with a shocking scene, as we see two teenage boys heading through the kitchens of a large restaurant into the dining room, where one of them approaches another teenager at a table, takes a machete, and hacks off the victim’s hand, leaving him screaming and covered with blood on the floor. The reasons for this won’t become apparent for some time, but we learn that Chen Jian Ho, called A-Ho throughout the film, is one of the two attackers, along with his friend Radish, and claims at the trial that he thought they were only going to scare the victim, not maim him. This incident sets off ripples throughout A-Ho’s family – his seemingly perfect brother, studying in cram school so he can become a doctor, starts to crack from the added pressure on him as the good son; his father refuses to acknowledge A-Ho as his son, and is beset by the victim’s father, who demands the compensation the court awarded him; his mother, quietly devastated time and again in this film, takes in A-Ho’s young girlfriend, who is pregnant with his child and living with an aunt. We follow A-Ho through his time in prison and his release, but when Radish, who received a longer sentence, gets out as well, he tracks A-Ho down and proceeds to make more trouble for his ‘friend’ even as A-Ho is trying to live a quiet, law-abiding life.

There are so many layers to A Sun, which is titled “Sunlight Reveals All” in Taiwanese, but at its heart it’s a story about A-Ho and his father, who works as a driving instructor and clearly wants more for both of his kids than he’s gotten from life. Chen Yi-wen, who plays A-Ho’s father Wen, won the Taiwanese equivalent of the Oscar for Best Actor at the Golden Horse Awardst, but his performance here builds over the course of the movie; what starts out as a hackneyed “I have only one son” character develops into far more by the time the movie hits its climax and Wen has to make a choice to help A-Ho when Radish once again has him in trouble. Chen’s performance is anguished and understated, and the dynamic between him and A-Ho (played by Wu Chien-ho, who was also nominated for the Golden Horse for Best Actor) reveals itself slowly to be more complex and emotional than it first appears.

There’s some irony both the original and English titles of A Sun given how much of the movie takes place under cover of night or in pouring rain; even when the sun is out, it’s often shining a light on something we’d rather not see. Director and co-writer Chung Mong-hong gives the film its neo-noir feel by keeping so much of the film in the literal and figurative dark; we don’t learn anything about the reasons for the initial attack until well into the second half of the film, by which point it threatens to upend the audience’s established opinions on various characters, and resets the tone for the drive to the finish. Chung’s script avoids black and white answers, right up through the final scene, in depicting a family that has made mistakes but is also being pushed around by inexorable fate. The sun will rise tomorrow, but you might not like what it shows you.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,
→ July 29, 2020
→ By

The Whistlers.

I doubt I would have even bothered looking for The Whistlers, which is free to watch on Hulu, if my friend Tim Grierson hadn’t named it one of his favorite films of 2020 so far. Submitted by Romania for this year’s Academy Award for Best International Feature Film, The Whistlers missed the shortlist in a very competitive group, and perhaps was too quirky or absurd for the committee (who did nominate The Painted Bird, which you couldn’t pay me to watch given how much I hated the book). It’s a crime drama with a perfectly ridiculous twist that makes it one of the most interesting and unusual films I saw from last year, so even where the plot is a bit off, it still works and kept me engrossed till the end.

The Whistlers takes place in Romania and on La Gomera, one of the smaller islands in the Canaries, jumping back and forth in location and time to follow the main character, Cristi, a Romanian police officer, as tries to free a businessman named Zsolt who has been taken by an organized crime ring based on the island. I was completely unaware of this before watching The Whistlers, La Gomera has a whistling language called Silbo Gomero that has been used for centuries to communicate across the island’s valleys. (You can read more about it at UNESCO’s page, commemorating its inclusion on the list of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.) To evade detection by foreign police officers, Cristi learns the whistling language, with comic misfires along the way, using it to talk to the various thugs with whom he’s working, along with the femme fatale Gilda, who is working with the criminals but also has her own agenda.

Cristi’s bosses suspect him of criminal involvement and have him under what appears to be nonstop surveillance, including bugging his apartment, which leads to all sorts of subterfuge, not least of which is Gilda pretending to be a sex worker, with Cristi a regular client, to fool the cameras. Of course, Cristi is hardly the only corrupt cop – one theme throughout every Romanian-language film I’ve seen is that pretty much everyone is corrupt – and it’s not really clear how effective their cover story is, especially given one detail towards the end of the film that was the only element I found hard to accept as plausible.

The Whistlers has a very neo-noir feel even with the comedic elements, thanks to a short list of named characters and a plot that has just about everyone in the story working multiple angles, including Cristi himself, reminiscent of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang orsome of the Coen Brothers’ work. The script plays the comedy very straight, respecting the whistling language even as Cristi looks utterly ridiculous trying to reproduce the sounds required for it, while also hiding enough of the byzantine machinations of all of the major characters to make the film’s resolution as suspenseful as you’d demand from a classic noir film.

Writer-director Corneliu Porumboiu is apparently better known for dramatic films, including Police, Adjective (which also stars Vlad Ivanov, who plays Cristi), so this script was a new turn for him, and his ability to write dark comedy is quite promising – and a welcome shift from the grim reputation of Romanian films. It also adheres to the spirit of traditional noir stories in that the actual crime at the heart of the plot, the theft of several million leus stuffed into a couple of mattresses, isn’t actually all that important to the film as a whole. This is about the interactions between the characters, with levity from Cristi’s difficulty mastering the whistling language, with an ending that ties the remaining threads together in clever, cohesive fashion.

Because The Whistlers was submitted and eligible for this year’s Oscars, I’ve included it as a 2019 film and added it to my ranking of all films from 2019 that I’ve seen.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,
→ August 6, 2019
→ By

A Kiss Before Dying.

Ira Levin wrote seven novels in his long career, as well as the long-running Broadway play Deathtrap, garnering raves from critics and his peers for much of his output despite working across a broad range of themes, with novels as seemingly disparate as Rosemary’s Baby and The Stepford Wives. His debut novel, A Kiss Before Dying, was a straightforward noir thriller, a grim take on a ‘perfect’ murder that uses shifting perspectives to keep the reader guessing in the first half of the novel and raise the stakes for the second half. (It’s out of print; the link above goes to the Kindle version.)

The first third of the novel centers on Dorothy, the daughter of a very wealthy copper magnate, who is dating a charming classmate at her college and has just revealed to him that she’s pregnant, which does not comport with his plans to marry her for her expected inheritance. Assuming she’ll be cut out of her father’s will for becoming pregnant outside of wedlock, the boyfriend first tries to get her to abort the baby and, when that fails, decides to kill her and make it look like a suicide. He succeeds, at least at first, but Dorothy’s sister Ellen can’t believe Dorothy would kill herself – especially since no one knew she was pregnant – and decides to go investigate.

At this point, Levin switches the point of view and you realize that he never named the boyfriend in part one, so you enter the college town with Ellen and share her ignorance of the killer’s identity – just a very rough description of his appearance, which means it could be any of several men, and Levin utilizes that puzzle to ratchet up the tension for the first half or so of Ellen’s section. Once you find out who it is, which I didn’t see coming, the story flips, putting the reader into the chase and the mystery of whether anyone will catch Dorothy’s killer before he kills again while exploring the depths of his sociopathy, eventually introducing us to the girls’ father, Leo, and making him a central character in the story even though he tries to avoid accepting that Dorothy was murdered.

The book has been filmed twice, once in 1956 to positive reviews and once in 1991 to negative ones, although in both cases the screenwriters changed the story enough that I don’t think either could possibly match what Levin accomplished here in the book. The murderer here isn’t so much twisted as callous and insensate, viewing Dorothy as a mark to make himself wealthy, and viewing all of his victims as obstacles, with no apparent compunctions whatsoever about killing to protect his own interests. Levin also takes advantage of the author’s privilege of hiding key information from you that would have to be revealed on a screen, which raises the stakes for the reader, makes the reveal especially potent, and then lets him play with perspective throughout the third part of the book, where you’re unsure if the killer will get away with his crimes or if the ‘good guys’ will figure it out in time. It’s very classic, straight noir, with a dim view of humanity that leans a bit towards Jim Thompson but with more balance between the good and the bad.

Next up: Milan Kundera’s The Unbearable Lightness of Being.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,
→ January 8, 2019
→ By

The Black Angel.

Cornell Woolrich’s name is scarcely heard today, although in his era he was one of the most important writers of pulp fiction, with his stories and novels adapted into acclaimed movies like Rear Window, The Bride Wore Black, and The Black Angel, the last of which is loosely based on his novel of the same name. The book isn’t easy to find in dead-tree versions, but it’s $1.99 right now for the Kindle and is also available on iBooks. First written in 1943 and adapted for film three years later, The Black Angel is classic noir as it follows a young woman on a desperate quest to exonerate her husband, convicted of capital murder, by finding out who really killed his mistress.

Alberta French is just 22 as the novel opens, and, as the narrator, tells of her wonderful love affair with the man she has now married, but whom she knows has been cheating on her because he’s stopped calling her by the nickname “Angel Face.” She figures out who his paramour is – a chorus girl named Mia Mercer – and goes to Mia’s apartment, but finds the woman’s corpse instead. Within hours, her husband, Kirk has been arrested, and the story skips through his trial and sentencing (to death) to get Alberta on the move, following just a few scant clues she swiped from Mia’s apartment to try to find her murderer. Woolrich then sends her on four missions, one to each of the names she found in Mia’s address book who might fit, each of which puts her in dangerous situations until she finally finds the real killer and nearly dies for it.

I’m a sucker for noir fiction, whether novels or films, and The Black Angel delivers that while avoiding at least a few of the worst clichés of the genre. Noir fiction was viewed as pulp in its own time, a style with commercial appeal but minimal literary or critical merit, and as a result much of what was published was hackneyed and predictable – material written to meet the low expectations of the market. The Black Angel has a female protagonist, which is rare enough, and then has her develop from a meek but determined woman into a clever if overconfident one by the end of the novel, someone who perseveres through failures (obviously, or the book would end rather early) and whose character changes as she learns from them. Woolrich also ditches much of the egg salad you’ll see in pulp short stories or radio programs of the era – the easy violence to jump the plot forward, the women all called up from central casting – to focus just on Alberta’s story and her increasingly involved attempts to deceive each of the suspects to try to figure out who killed Mia. It’s unsurprising given his own background as a failed writer of more serious fiction, but it makes Black Angel a good follow-up for folks who, like me, loved the work of Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler but have already read their limited output.

I mentioned the film adaptation of The Black Angel above, but haven’t seen it yet; the story changes so that Alberta’s character, now named Catherine, has to pair up with a man to hunt down the murderer, with other substantial changes to the plot. Alberta’s character as the protagonist and de facto detective was one of the most interesting aspects of the book, so demoting her to half of a team with a big strong man to help her along seems like a downgrade.

Next up: Anna Burns’ Milkman, winner of the 2018 Man Booker Brize.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , ,
→ October 16, 2018
→ By

Missing Person.

French author Patrick Modiano won the 2014 Nobel Prize in Literature, and his best-known work, at least outside of France, is his novel Missing Person (originally Rue des Boutiques Obscure, a real street in Rome on which Modiano once lived), which won the 1978 Prix Goncourt, the French equivalent to the Pulitzer or the National Book Award. Modiano’s works tend to be short and tersely written, with sparing prose not too dissimilar to Hemingway’s, and a constant distance maintained between the reader and the text. (This post is primarily about Missing Person, but this summer I also read Suspended Sentences, a collection of three novellas by Modiano, which informs my opinion of his style.)

The protagonist of Missing Person is an amnesiac detective whose boss of ten years is retiring, leaving him to try to solve the case of his own lost identity and history, based on scant clues and the need to talk to people who may not remember him, or want to talk, or even still be among the living. The short novel follows the character around Paris and France, and eventually to the South Pacific island of Bora Bora, as he tries to unroll the years he lost prior to whatever caused his amnesia. He uncovers a possible answer to his identity, although it’s far from certain, and the person he may once have been was himself a frequent changer of identities as he tried to flee from the occupying forces during World War II, eventually slipping across the Pyrennées into Spain.

Even that story, however, is of dubious veracity, and there’s a sense throughout the novel that the protagonist, who also narrates the work, is grasping at any straws he can find, overly eager to get an answer to his search without worrying enough whether it’s accurate. He has a photograph of someone who might have been him, but whenever he shows it to someone who might recognize him in that context, he’s quick to ask, “Don’t you think it looks like me?” — a leading question that elicits half-hearted agreement more than actual answers. Once the narrator has a story on to which he can latch on, he also seems to drop alternate theories, which seems contrary to his new identity as a private detective and apparently a successful one at that.

It’s impossible to read a story like this without also seeing it as a meditation on identity – on our need for a back story, for example, or how on the stories we tell ourselves to provide meaning to our lives, especially when there might be things in our own pasts we’d rather gloss over or forget entirely. It’s unclear whether the protagonist did things during the war of which he might not be proud now, and there’s a trap in his easy adoption of this particular identity: what if he finds he was a collaborator, not a resister, during World War II? Or simply betrayed people who were close to him? The farther he goes down this rabbit hole, trying to convince people to give him the answers he wanted, the greater the risk he exposes himself to a story he might have preferred to forget.

And if the narrator can’t solve the mystery of his identity and past, then what remains for him? Can he be satisfied living a life without a history, or knowing his real name (or, as it seems, one of his real names)? When the foundation of our self-identification is denied to us, how does that affect our ability to function in a society that is obsessed not just with who we are or where we came from, but with where our parents came from, or whether we come from certain stock or a high enough class? What does the lack of a personal history do to someone’s self-image? Is it better to have a satisfying myth than to have the unvarnished truth – especially if the latter is unflattering or even includes something shameful?

Modiano’s stories seem to lack firm conclusions; that is certainly true of Missing Person, where the Bora Bora lead doesn’t pan out, leaving the narrator with one last clue to try to unravel his personal history, with the novel ending with a brief thought from the narrator on his quixotic mission but no resolution. He might know who he was, but he’s not sure and it appears he might never receive that closure. Modiano asks if half an answer, of uncertain accuracy, would be better than having none at all, and leaves it to the reader to judge.

Next up: I’m halfway through Vernor Vinge’s mammoth Hugo-winning novel A Deepness in the Sky.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,
→ October 15, 2018
→ By

Hold the Dark.

The Netflix movie Hold the Dark, which was released briefly in theaters and debuted at the Toronto film festival, is a slow-burning mix of Jim Thompson-esque noir and psychological horror, set in the bleakest of American landscapes – a small Native American village somewhere in Alaska. Based on the novel by William Giraldi and directed by Jeremy Saulner (Green Room), the movie falls for a few cliches of the noir genre but keeps the tension high at virtually every point, eventually arriving at a climax that appears to have left many readers guessing at what it meant.

A writer and wolf expert Russell Core (Jeffrey Wright) gets a letter from an Alaska woman named Medora Sloane (Riley Keough), who says her son was kidnapped by wolves and asks Core to come find the wolf and kill it. He does, but things get weird almost immediately, when on his first night staying in her house, she appears nude, wearing a wolf mask, and lies down next to him while trying to get him to choke her. Her husband, Vernon (Alexander Skarsgård), is seen in graphic scenes of firefighting in Iraq, and is nearly killed, returning home to find his son dead and his wife by that point missing, which in turn sets off a string of violent shootings that envelop an unwilling Core in their web and the manhunt for Vernon that ensues. (Medora is the young woman who waits at home for her pirate captain lover Corrado on Verdi’s opera Il corsaro; she and Corrado both die at the end, because that’s just how things went in 19th century opera.)

Hold the Dark is decidedly, deliberately creepy, with barren white landscapes and wooden cabins with dark interiors, so that nearly all of the movie is a little hard on the eyes and leaves you unsettled regardless of what’s happening on the screen. Core is the central character, although the narrative does shift to follow Vernon on the lam, and much of the camera work tries to give you that same sense of dread and confusion that Core would be experiencing as he’s exploring the Sloanes’ basement or is caught in a firefight with cops and a suspect. There’s a lot of graphic violence – almost every shooting involves blood and flesh flying from the body, certainly more than anyone really needs to see here – but the most powerful on-screen deaths are the ones that occur with little or no warning. Core is a witness to nearly all of them, and his reactions, coupled with the trouble he has coping with the short daylight hours of the Alaskan winter (it’s near the solstice, so the days are just five or so hours long), infuse the film with a sense of permanent unease, like the world is spinning just a tick faster than normal and you can’t find your footing.

Wright is especially apt for his role, as the grey in his beard and his overall mien convey seriousness and an implacability that will be quickly tested by the events of the story, and he has the deep, sonorous voice that can work even as the characters are mumbling. There is a lot of mumbling, though, which struck me as a too-hard attempt to give the movie that noir feel – it’s all serious, we’re serious, a little violence won’t even change the cadence of our speech – when the plot itself should do that. This is dark noir, like Thompson or even some James Cain, where no character is safe and thus you don’t feel like you can anchor yourself to anyone in the film. Even Keough tries to join in, with a vacant, affect-less speech that makes her sound more strung-out than anything else (exacerbated by makeup that makes it look like she hasn’t slept in a long time – which would fit her character’s arc).

The sky and the dark are frequent themes and characters mention them several times, both as a metaphor for the psychosis that appears to have gripped some of the characters in the film and as a literal reference to the effect that the wide open spaces and pervasive darkness can have on people who are already living isolated lives. The wolf mask and several scenes with wolves acting in what appear to be counterintuitive ways speak to the fact that we are animals at heart, and the story seems to ask whether we are really all that able to suppress the animal instincts within us. There’s also a subtext here, never spelled out but to which the dialogue alludes a few times (and with one picture), that I shouldn’t mention for fear of spoiling the ending, although apparently this is clearer in the book (I did not think it was very clear), but it’s important to fully understand what Hold the Dark is trying to achieve. If you can stand the violence – and I would say this was on the edge of what I tolerate – it’s a really gripping, dark vision into humanity on the edge of civilization, and most of the film lives up to the tension of a good thriller.

(One warning: there’s a rape scene near the start of the movie that isn’t explicit but makes it very clear what’s happening. The scene is shot strangely anyway, but I thought a trigger warning was justified.)

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,
→ June 28, 2018
→ By

Thoroughbreds.

Thoroughbreds (amazon • iTunes) is sort of Discount Heathers, with a girl playing the disaffected provocateur role, and a lower body count, plus an ending that doesn’t quite hold together as tightly as its obvious inspiration. Even with some of its flaws, however, it’s so tightly written and features two riveting performances by its leads that it’s worth seeing even if you, like me, have fond memories of the 1988 darkly comic original.

Thoroughbreds starts out with the two teenaged protagonists reuniting after several years apart, meeting as Andover student Lily (Anya Taylor-Joy) begins to tutor the peculiar Amanda (Olivia Cooke), the latter of whom has apparently just killed her horse. Amanda has exceptional perception and quickly sees through Lily’s pretenses, while also confessing to extreme emotional detachment: Amanda is anhedonic and perhaps antisocial, feeling nothing whatsoever and showing it in her perpetually neutral expressions. Her gaze and her tone are both disarming, which leads to the first of many funny scenes when Lily finally cops to the fact that Amanda freaks her out.

The plot kicks into gear shortly afterwards when Amanda suggests to Lily that she kill her controlling and vaguely creepy stepfather, Mark, who is very wealthy and berates Lily’s ineffectual mother. (Although I thought the film implied early in the script that Mark was at the least leering at Lily, if not actually attempting to abuse her, that turned out to be wrong, and Mark is just an asshole, but not a criminal.) Lily is aghast at the idea, until she sees Mark verbally abuse her mother again and finds out he’s decided to send her to a different boarding school, after which she tells Amanda she wants to go through with it. They plan to use a lowlife drug dealer, Tim (Anton Yelchin in what I think ended up his last film role), as hitman, although his willingness and his competence are both open questions. As the plan progresses, it turns out that Lily isn’t quite the delicate flower – or lily-white princess – she appears to be.

Taylor-Joy is perfect as Lily, embodying both the perfect little white girl persona and the stuck-up prep school teenager, but it’s Cooke as Amanda who grabs the wheel and steers the movie all the way to the big finish. Cooke has to be convincing as this weary, wise, incisive kid who is fooled by nobody and who rigorously applies logic to every situation, including understanding why people will act in specific ways and how to use that to their advantage. And she is, to an exceptional degree – her delivery is so dry, and her face so impassive, that Cooke sells Amanda as a teenaged automaton, making everything that comes afterwards credible, because nothing in this film works without that character. Taylor-Joy works, and it wouldn’t surprise me if she had the bigger career of the two, but Cooke has this film by the throat and never lets go.

Cory Finley made his debut as both director and screenwriter with Thoroughbreds, crafting those two compelling characters and working in plenty of very dark humor, although he seemed unsure of how to stick the landing, and the film wobbles as a result before more or less staying on its feet. Amanda’s motivation at the climax is unclear or just hard to accept, and the brief coda doesn’t add anything to the story; ending the film in the final shot with Lily and Amanda together would have been more effective. There are also some extremely strong and unsettling shots of the girls’ faces that add to the noir-ish feel of the film without interrupting its flow. It’s a very auspicious first effort for Finley, however, marking him as a filmmaker to watch, as well as a star turn for Cooke.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,
→ May 8, 2018
→ By

You Were Never Really Here.

I’m a known sucker for just about anything noir or even noir-ish – I mean, my most anticipated movie of 2018 is The Happytime Murders, which might be best categorized as “Muppet film noir” – so Lynne Ramsey’s latest movie, You Were Never Really Here, is more or less right in my subjective wheelhouse. It is dark as hell, unrelenting, and viscerally satisfying even as the grotesque imagery disturbs you. With yet another star turn from Joaquin Phoenix in the lead role, it gives the hero/antihero dichotomy a third look, with a detective who suffers from PTSD due to repeated traumas and channels some of that energy into finding missing girls – and into brutally beating his adversaries with a hammer.

Based on a novella by Jonathan Ames, You Were Never Really Here gives us Joe (Phoenix), a private detective who seems obsessed with secrecy to a paranoid extent, and who we see from the very start engages in self-destructive behavior like nearly asphyxiating himself in dry-cleaner plastic bags. He returns from a successful rescue in Cincinnati to see his boss, McCleary (John Doman of The Wire), and eventually receives a new assignment to rescue the missing daughter of a widowed state senator. Beginning with an address that the senator received via an anonymous text, Joe stakes out the building, which he suspects is a brothel with underaged girls inside, but the rescue attempt opens him up to a broader conspiracy – perhaps justifying his earlier paranoia – and a spreading web of violence that puts everyone close to Joe in the killers’ sights.

The mystery around the missing girl, Nina (played by Ekaterina Samsonov, who is 15 but looks much younger for this role), is secondary to the story of Joe, which we get via brief, often disjointed flashbacks as they might appear in Joe’s own mind as he re-experiences traumatic memories from childhood, where his father was abusive to him and to Joe’s mother; and from his time serving in the Army in the Middle East. The depiction of trauma is hard to watch, but ultimately realistic in how the brain revisits the trauma and the actions a victim might take as coping mechanisms that don’t do anything to solve the long-term problem. Rather than use the traumatic history as a plot device – here’s why Joe is the way he is – the film shows the ongoing damage he’s suffering from it. To the very end, there is no indication that Joe, who wants to assure Nina that thinks will be okay, is anything close to okay himself.

Phoenix is tremendous in this role, delivering a more nuanced performance than he did with his Oscar-nominated impersonation of Johnny Cash in Walk the Line, giving Joe the right level of simmering rage that gives little warning before it boils over. He won Best Actor at Cannes last year, just about a year ago this week, for the film, which also won the Best Screenplay award there for Ramsey. (It lost the Palme d’Or to The Square, which is a poor choice and seems a very Cannes thing to have happen.) Samsonov is a revelation in a small but critical role, one that becomes much more important and, I would imagine, difficult for a child actor, as the story progresses and Nina becomes more than just a prop for the plot.

The film is dark in the literal sense as well, with grimy shots of alleys and stairwells, disorienting top-down shots of Joe in action, and even some violence (almost all of which is left off-camera) shown as if on security-camera footage. The hammer is Joe’s weapon of choice, for reasons that become apparent in the film as well, but Ramsey films the various assaults from behind Joe or from such a distance that you don’t actually see the hits. There’s blood in the film, but it’s all shown after the fact, and in those cases it’s not Joe’s doing; the one time we see Joe interacting with one of his own victims, the result is morbidly comic and almost sentimental, one of the only times we get a glimpse of Joe’s deeply empathetic streak when he’s not beating someone’s brains in.

The lack of air is a recurring motif in this film, a possible metaphor for the feelings of panic and the sense of being ‘trapped’ that often haunt PTSD sufferers until they get real help (not just, say, cognitive behavioral therapy, which doesn’t work for PTSD). There’s no sign here that Joe has ever sought treatment, so he’s caught in a cycle of reliving his traumas, even dissociating for moments, to the point where I expected it to eventually cost him in a physical conflict. (I won’t spoil whether that happens.) But we keep returning to situations where he can’t breathe, or finds someone in such a situation, which certainly mirrors the experience of having a full-blown panic attack.

This isn’t a movie for everyone or even for most people; it’s grim, there’s enough results-of-violence on screen to merit the R rating, and while we see none of the abuse of underaged girls, it’s present enough in the story that it would likely deter many viewers. I think it’s superb, however, reminiscent of the bleak noir novels of Jim Thompson (The Killer Inside Me, pop. 1280) or Horace McCoy’s They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?. While not quite as hopeless as those books can be, You Were Never Really Here captures that same sense of existential darkness, and like Thompson’s books in particular, it succeeds in getting us inside the head of the protagonist and using the crime as a vehicle to explore his character in a way few films in the detective/noir genre have done.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,
→ December 5, 2017
→ By

Good Time.

Good Time is the newest film from the Safdie brothers, whose last project, Heaven Knows What, was based on the memoir by Arielle Holmes, who starred in it and then played the Darth Vader-obsessed character in last year’s American Honey. Good Time is a straight-up heist film, with Robert Pattinson tremendous as the main character, in the vein of a Jim Thompson novel but less successful than Thompson was at tying up the loose ends of an intriguing plot setup. It’s out now on iTunes and amazon.

Pattinson plays Connie Nikas, who robs a bank with his developmentally disabled brother Nick (Benny Safdie), only to have a dye pack in the bag of cash blow up on them in the getaway car. This leads to an extended chase sequence where the brothers are separated and Nick is arrested, leaving Connie free but desperate to free his brother from Rikers, where he knows Benny isn’t likely to survive. Connie’s attempts to pay his brother’s bail drive the rest of the film, aided by the fact that Connie is about half as smart as he thinks he is – I don’t think the word “contingency” would be in his vocabulary.

Pattinson is absolutely great in this, the second excellent performance I’ve seen from him this year along with The Lost City of Z. He’s a magnetic presence, and he plays Connie in a constant manic state that keeps the tension high and also makes it clear to the audience that he’s liable to fly off the handle at the slightest provocation. His concern for his brother is palpable, maybe the one sign of humanity we see in Connie, who otherwise is somewhere on the sociopath-psychopath spectrum and seems destined to get a lot of people maimed or killed. Several critics, including A.O. Scott, accused Safdie of overdoing his portrayal of someone a little slow and a little hard of hearing, but I didn’t think it was exaggerated or offensive in the limited time he’s on screen.

No one else in the movie even seems real, and there’s no depth at all to any character. Pattinson ends up in the apartment of an older woman he met on a hospital bus and befriends her 16-year-old granddaughter, but those two are largely ciphers in the film – you expect a back story, a connection, even a metaphorical one, but there’s none there. I found nothing at all beneath the grimy surface of Good Time; it’s a heist gone wrong story, with a dark-hearted character at the center, who ends up teaming up with a feckless idiot in a last-ditch attempt to raise the funds he needs. Once those two pair up, the energy of the film sputters out, and doesn’t return at all until the final sequence before the credits when the story gets its resolution.

One aspect to recommend the film, beyond Pattinson’s performance: The score from avant-garde composer Daniel Lopatin, who records as Oneohtrix Point Never, is banging, and props up the film in several moments when the engine starts to stall.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,
→ March 22, 2017
→ By

The Yiddish Policemen’s Union.

Michael Chabon won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 2001 with his sprawling novel The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, a story about comic books, magicians, Jewish mysticism, homophobia, fascism, and a few other themes, one that garnered universal praise but that I thought could have used some serious editing. That experience steered me away from Chabon, figuring if I couldn’t love his acknowledged masterwork then I probably just wasn’t a fan, until I picked up his Hugo Award winner The Yiddish Policemen’s Union earlier this year in a used bookstore. It’s still very much Chabon’s voice, but the story here is so much more focused and the side characters more developed, which spurred my “hot take” tweet the other day that I preferred this novel to his magnum opus.

The Yiddish Policemen’s Union is set in an alternate timeline where the real-life proposal to create a homeland in Alaska for displaced Jews went through, and where the state of Israel was overrun by Arab attackers, so that the city of Sitka – population in our timeline: about 9000 – is a bustling metropolis of over two million people, mostly Jewish refugees and their descendants. (For comparison’s sake, the entire state of Alaska has fewer than 750,000 people right now.) This protectorate comes with an expiration date, like the United Kingdom’s agreement in Hong Kong or our agreement in Panama, where the autonomy of the local Jewish population over their municipal affairs will end two months after the time in which the story takes place, with the fate of all of these Jews unknown. They may lose their citizenship, and will certainly lose their socioeconomic status, with federal agents lurking, ready to come in and throw the Jews out.

Set against this backdrop is an old-fashioned noir detective novel, one that begins with a dead junkie in the flophouse where alcoholic cop Meyer Landsman lives (and drinks). The junkie has been shot in the head, execution-style, but left behind some very strange clues, including a miniature chessboard left in the middle of a difficult problem and Jewish prayer strings (tzitzit) that the victim appears to have used to tie off when shooting heroin. The victim turns out to be someone fairly significant in the local underworld, which spins Landsman and his partner, the half-Jewish/half-Tlingit Berko Shemets, into a traditional hard-boiled detective storyline where they bounce in a sort of circle around the same handful of suspects and sources to try to unravel the core mystery. Of course, Landsman gets knocked out, kidnapped, nearly killled, and drunk over the course of the novel, because Chabon is at least true to the form to which he’s paying homage.

Chabon creates a fun cast of eccentrics to populate this novel – which was also true of Kavalier and Clay – even though he has to cut them all from the same basic cloth. They’re all exiles facing the potential end of their safe haven, all brought up in the same semi-closed community, all coping with the same existential doubts. Even those who’ve spent time outside of the enclave, such as Meyer’s ex-wife and now boss Bina, share the same core experiences and are facing the same sort of countdown-to-extinction questions. Chabon gives them surprising depth given the limitations he’s placed on himself with this setting.

He also wrote a cracking good plot; at the end of the day, detective fiction lives and dies by two things, the main character and the story, so while Chabon’s prose can be spectacular, it’s lipstick on a pig if the story isn’t good. I was drawn into the story fairly quickly, and he manages to peel back the layers in a way that feels realistic, while also infusing just enough of a conspiracy to keep the reader guessing – and to give some meaning to the general sense of the Sitka population that the world is really out to get the city’s Jews.

The characters in the book are all supposed to be speaking Yiddish, with a glossary at the end of the book for Yiddish terms that Chabon chose to keep or that lack an easy translation, a detail that makes sense for the setting but that gave the book the only real distraction, especially when Chabon would tell us that a certain character had switched to English or, on one or two occasions, Hebrew. It fits the setting – a refugee population moving en masse like that wouldn’t just adopt a new tongue – but detracted slightly from the flow of the story.

As for the ending … I don’t think Chabon intended to satisfy the reader here, because this isn’t a traditional hard-boiled detective novel, but an updated one that respects the tradition, and because the conclusion here has to mimic the fate of the Sitka population. They’re not getting the resolution they deserve, so the readers should at least be left with some ambiguity to reflect it. With the rest of the story as tightly woven and written as it is, that’s a compromise I can easily accept as a reader.

Next up: Lois McMaster Bujold’s Hugo winner Mirror Dance, part of the Vorkosigan series; I read and enjoyed The Vor Game in November but skipped the review because I was on vacation.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,