Posts tagged as:

Michael Pitt

It feels a bit ironic to say that Larry Clark, the director of Kids, Wassup Rockers, and Ken Park, failed to push Bully as far as it could go. It feels doubly so because, at times, Bully feels like a venture into pornography and sadomasochism. At the same time, these elements seem more like redundant exposition to define characters rather than a form of social commentary or examination of the murder of Bobby Kent, a young man in Florida who was killed by a group of “friends” in 1993 for being a manipulative bully.

Like he did in Kids, Clark explores the boundaries at which his audience will squirm over the content; neither film does this in a horror-movie sense where we wait for something to jump out of a closet or to see someone disemboweled on screen. Rather, Clark makes us the voyeurs of a group of teenagers whose backboneless parents are oblivious to their children’s extracurricular activities: sex, drugs, fetishism, and murder.

To Clark’s credit, he illustrates the parents’ laissez faire attitude by their paucity. For the most part, they function as scenery: a baby sitter for Ali Willis’ (Bijou Phillips) child, Lisa Connelly’s (Rachel Miner) intermittent voice of reason, and Marty Puccio’s (Brad Renfro) indifferent father. These three parents move the plot along, but in the grand scheme, they represent a partial cause of their children’s isolation and ultimate gravitation toward one another. An exception to this grouping could be Bobby Kent’s father (Ed Amatrudo), who is oblivious like the others but is a presence in his son’s life, telling him that he has a bright future and to stay away from the likes of Marty. Still, Clark uses Mr. Kent to illustrate the pedestal on which children are placed, offering the parental assumption that their children are incapable of doing wrong.

So, in one capacity, Bully offers a look at a seemingly effusive parental ignorance. In correlation, the parents’ ignorance also fosters a feeling of detachment between them and their children, ultimately pushing them to seek acceptance through other arteries of illusory friendship: namely, each other. This is a fine theme to tackle, though it is often hyperbolized to the point of cartoonish. Each of the young characters treads in their own apathy and indifference: Ali Willis, a mother whose child is not referenced until the final twenty minutes, prances around in shorts that would have a hard time being upgraded to underwear, is promiscuous for the simple sake of being promiscuous, and is, for the most part, unaffected by the fact that Bobby has raped her. Lisa Connelly, Marty’s girlfriend, initially comes up with the idea to kill Bobby, falls in love with Marty after one date, or rather, one night stand,  declares, “I love you so much, I can’t believe how much I love you,” and is also generally unaffected by the fact that Bobby also raped her. Aside from their experience with Bobby, another common denominator between Ali and Lisa is that they construct their value through their image. Ali is the “knockout” of the two, but both adorn their walls with magazine cutouts of female supermodels and male hunks, giving themselves and idyllic image to strive for and using sex and physicality as a substitute for love and acceptance.

Something similar can be said for both Marty and Bobby, two young men who are in fine physical shape but whose relationships are built on sex and sexuality – even their own. Portrayed as a closet homosexual, Bobby bonds with other males by watching male on male pornography and uses it to get off while he has sex with women. Ostensibly this would boil down to a person’s individual tastes, but there seems to be a forced connected between Bobby’s fetishes and his adoration for Marty. In other words, Bobby pines for Marty, but fearing the label of “homosexual,” Bobby buries them and takes the resulting aggression out on the various women that he meets to show that he is the stereotypical, heterosexual alpha male. Similarly, his jealousy of Marty also manifests itself in violent outbursts, often verbally deriding Marty or physically assaulting him, particularly when the subject of a woman arises – in this case, Lisa. While Bobby’s violence and verbal castigation asserts a measure of control over Marty, it’s more telling that Bobby immediately feels remorse for his actions – genuine or not it’s unclear – which is a reaction to the fear of losing Marty.

Bully’s look at homosexuality in an ideologically constructed society is also poignant – or at least it could be – but this theme becomes mishmashed in a film that tries to tackle too many external influences in a ninety minute period. (The movie runs for close to two hours, but the last twenty minutes is the denouement that runs the gamut of alibi fabrication, paranoia, consultation, arrests and accusations of snitching). Another poignant topic skated over is violence in video games and the media that illustrates how the insouciance of inflicting violence in a video game is much different than inflicting violence on someone “you’re not trying to hurt […]; you’re trying to kill.”

Ultimately, the most powerful part of the film, and best shot, is the murder of Bobby Kent and its immediate psychological aftermath as the gravity of the act dawns on the clan of assassins, leading each one of them to quantify the part they played to absolve themselves of the actual murder, preferring to claim having only “stuck the knife in like this much,” showing the size of the wound by holding a thumb and forefinger two inches apart, or just “mov[ing] the body,” even though the purpose of moving the body was to drop him face down in the swamp and finish Bobby’s unconscious body off by drowning him.

Like other Clark films, Bully is well shot and has a fair amount of artistic merit that defines the characters, but in the end, the audience is given no character to sympathize with. Bullying – and its progeny cyber bullying – is as much a contemporary issue as it was in 1993 when the real Bobby Kent was murdered, but the overall plights and motivations of each character are so superficial that it’s difficult to care about who died, how, and the subsequent punishment of the attackers. Despite his flaws, the filmic version of Kent should have evoked sympathy. He doesn’t. The isolation of Marty, Lisa, and Ali should make us feel sorry for their wonky, misguided views on life. It doesn’t. We should want to shake each of their parents. We don’t. Bully offers a glimpse at the external influences on today’s world and their seemingly imminent, nihilistic consequences; unfortunately, its cursory nature elides any desire we might have to change them, preferring that they just pick each other off through a circuit of annihilation.

{ 0 comments }

Four From Haneke

by Dustin Freeley on February 5, 2010 · 1 comment

Austrian director Michael Haneke might be one of the most provocative working in the film industry today.  I’ve shied away from using the term “Hollywood” because there is nothing in Hollywood that resembles the patience exhibited my Haneke—much less the pleasure taken in keeping an audience on pins and needles, forever hinting that a boogey man will leap out of the closet only to resign to the creepiness that is inherent to the characters that Haneke brings to the screen.  In a way, I understand how a number of Haneke’s films might be considered unbearable to watch.

Honestly, I’m not sure how many times I can watch The Piano Teacher without becoming completely—and depressingly—introspective.

At the same time, Haneke possesses a gift for marrying suspense, intrigue and social commentary that is rarely seen in contemporary cinema—The Coen Brothers present these qualities admirably, as do Paul Thomas Anderson and Jason Reitman.

(Note: I’m sure there are one or two glaring omissions, but my inability to recall them right now attests to the fact that we as a movie-viewing culture are more bombarded with the likes of the superbly untalented Michael Bay, the corn-syrup aficionado Rob Zombie, or M. Night Shyamalan.)

That said, here is a rundown of four Haneke films:

The White Ribbon

Recently nominated for the Best Foreign Film Academy Award, The White Ribbon veers from a number of Haneke’s earlier films in that no single scene takes the audience’s breath away.  In Funny Games, your spine continuously tingles and threatens to escape through your lower back.  The Piano Teacher covers you in a wave of sadomasochism and threatens to drown you in Erika’s dementia.  Cache casts the viewer as a voyeur who silently and unwittingly augers a chasm between a wife and her husband who is haunted by subconscious lamentations that resurface from mysterious surveillance tapes that appear on his doorstep.

Set in a small village in northern Germany before the start of World War I, The White Ribbon explores the existence of evil and its indifference to social class and gender.  Yet, somehow the evil is subdued.  A doctor breaks his clavicle when he is thrown from his horse that trips over a taut wire that has been placed between two trees on the doctor’s regular route.  At the same time, the maliciousness of such a deliberate sabotage needs to be questioned when the audience discovers that the incestuous, pedophilic doctor had been cheating on her husband with the concubinal house-nurse.  Therefore, is evil justified as it takes on the form of retribution, or is evil begetting evil?

Shot in a beautiful black and white that gently blends the background’s variegated palate of grays with the over-illuminated white skin of small village’s denizens, The White Ribbon resembles a documentary, maintaining a safe distance form characters who we read as innocent but who sweat ambivalence by the end of the film.

Most profoundly, Haneke offers commentary on our perception of history.  The film comes to a close shortly after Archduke Franz Ferdinand has been assassinated—which is usually the high-school-centered rhetoric that is blamed for the cause of World War I.  With The White Ribbon, Haneke does not offer a history lesson, but suggests that all people are capable of apathy, indifference and acts of violence for personal gain and retribution; we merely need a broader excuse to channel those qualities into a large-scale, collective offensive.

DYL MAG Score: 8

Cache

From frame one, the audience is a surveillance camera, our look cast upon the front of a French apartment building where nothing appears to happen aside from every day comings and goings, passersby on bicycles, cars parking and driving off.  Soon, these tapes are dropped off on the doorstep of George and Anne Laurent (Daniel Auteuil and Juliette Binoche), spurring anxiety from the random creepiness and driving a wedge between the couple as George internalizes the intrusion as punishment for jealousy-driven actions he took as a child to prevent his parents from adopting Majid, a young boy whose own parents were murdered.

Fortifying George’s paranoia is the fact that the tapes are wrapped in construction paper that has obscure images drawn on them. Resembling Rorschach-style free association, the first image of a male stick figure with a splotch of red near his mouth conjures memories of George’s bleeding nose.  Another image is that of what appears to be a crudely scribbled bird with a streak of red across its neck with recalls images of George tricking Majid into decapitating one of George’s father’s chickens.

The deliverer of the tapes is never revealed, nor is the reason for them—which only increases the creepiness of Cache—but what the audience is left with is the Foucaultian sense of vulnerability and objectification.  Privacy is an illusion, and personal guilt is a powerful weapon when someone else wields it.

DYL MAG Score: 7.5

The Piano Teacher

Isabelle Hupert gives a stellar—and eerily enrapturing—performance as Erika Kohut, a pianist whose social and sexual desires have been long-overshadowed by her devotion to music, but Kohut has reached middle age and is resigned to being a professor who remains steps away from her idols Schubert and Schumann.

Kohut’s sadism makes this film uneasy to watch (in a subdued fit of jealousy, Kohut breaks a glass within a silk handkerchief and places the shards in the coat pocket of one of her young students), but Hupert plays the character with a stoic veneer that often cracks to expose the vulnerable underbelly that craves physical and sensual attention.  Soon, Walter Klemmer (Benoit Magimel), a young man with moderate talent enters Kohut’s life as a student and confesses his infatuation with her.  Wearing the façade of domineering instructor, Kohut demeans him by dragging him into the woman’s bathroom and masturbates him while barking that he not look at her, not move, not touch her.  Underneath, Kohut is as lost sexually as she is socially, visiting male-oriented x-rated video stores and peepshows, which suggests that she is unaware of her own sexuality, much less female sexuality in general. In addition, she walks drive-in movie theaters, searching for cars with sexually active teens so that she might eavesdrop on their moans and groans while masturbating outside of their steamed windows.

The audience’s mutual ride with Kohut perpetually spirals when she bring Walter back to her flat—one that she shares with her domineering, obsessive mother—and hands him a letter that proffers a masochistic rape scenario that she would like to be the victim in. Taken aback, Walter is disgusted and flees the flat, but here the audience is left wondering whether or not this is part of Kohut’s desires.  Ultimately, there is a rape scene, but it is never clear until a split-second frame in the last two minutes of the movie whether Kohut’s pleas for salvation are genuine or if it’s simply a sexually awakening catharsis.  Regardless, Kohut’s psyche is caught adrift in a churning sea, and amazingly, Hupert and Haneke subtly tether us to the rogue waves, threatening to drown us before permitting a final breath.

DYL MAG Score: 8.5

Funny Games (2007)

In a remake of his 1997 film, Haneke brings Funny Games into the American consciousness, and while it wasn’t received with open arms—unlike his Austrian original—it is my favorite film of his because it questions our expectations of the reality that we ascribe to the events of a film.  In other words, we root for the protagonist because this person has been established as the innocent who finds him or herself in the grasp of unfortunate circumstance.  But in the end, good will overcome, and the antagonist will expose—most often—his Achilles heel and is either killed, locked up, forced to retreat from the situation, typically leaving at least one antagonist alive, even if he or she is wounded (this only increases our sympathy for the character and probability for an over-budgeted, underwhelming sequel—Hannibal comes to mind).

In Funny Games, Haneke toys with the audience from the first five minutes when a family of three,  mother Ann, father George, and son Georgie travel in their Dodge Caravan on a winding mountain road. In literary fashion, the first characters we meet are those we are connected to a la Edgar Allen Poe’s use of murders as his first person narrators/murders.  At the same time—with the exception of Georgie, an innocence-seething-child who ultimately dies first—Ann and George Farber (Naomi Watts and Tim Roth) are not all that likable.  Rather, they are pretentious yuppies whose conversation during the drive is a contest to name the composer, opera, and operatic piece of music that they are listening to. Classical appreciation does not connote pretention, but each response to the other is condescending and belittling.

Ann:

Bjorling. (with confidence) Suliodis?

George:

Close. Bjorling is easy.

Ann:

Tibaldi.

Ann wins, chooses a CD. Inserts Handel’s “Care Selve Obre Beate”

George:

Oh God (arrogantly). Uh, Gigli (sarcastically).

Ann:

Of course, but what?

At the same time that this yuppiedom encapsulates the happy family in the Caravan, Haneke positions us on eye-level with driver George and Ann as if we were peering at them through the back window of a Ford Probe that blasts Naked City’s thrash-metal ballad “Bonehead”; this camera technique simultaneously connects us to the Farbers while detaching us from their vacuumed bliss, denoting us as outsiders looking in.

Still, when the Farbers arrive at their summer home and encounter the austere and eerily polite Peter and Paul (Bradley Corbet and Michael Pitt), we need to root for their survival, even though George Farber reveals himself as little more than a pathetic, pusillanimous weakling who relies on his wife to become the self-sacrificing family savior.  While Naomi Watts delivers a powerful, heart-wrenching performance as a woman determined to protect her family, the gravity with which she is thrust into the role is disturbing merely because it attests to George’s cowardice.

Admittedly, there are gimmicky moments within Funny Games—like when Ann quickly rips a shotgun from Paul’s grasp and shoots Peter in the chest, leading us to a moment of protagonist victory and the demise of evil incarnate, but all is erased when Paul mordantly chuckles and then seeks the “fucking remote control” to reverse Peter’s tragic murder.  However, after subsequent viewings, this scene strikes me as no less gimmicky than a movie that would progress with underdog Ann ripping a shotgun from Paul’s grasp and shooting Peter in the chest, leading us to a moment of protagonist victory and the demise of evil incarnate.  Although difficult to watch without reminding your spine that it shouldn’t try to escape through your lower back, Funny Games reminds us of the minimal realism that exists in movies by visually—and literally—erasing the fantastical element that allows the “hero” to usurp her captors and emerge victorious.

DYL MAG Score: 9.5

{ 1 comment }