Mister Lonely

Mister Lonely

Directed by Harmony Korine

105 minutes

After Gummo (1997) and some documentary shorts in between Harmony Korine made Mister Lonely (2007). This film I would suggest is Korine’s lightest and acts almost as a statement piece to his usual treatment. You could say it’s like watching the backdrop of a Douglas Sirk film with some David Lynch characters thrown in.

The general gist here revolves around a Michael Jackson impersonator (Diego Luna) who busks the streets of Paris. When Michael gets a break in a retirement village he meets another impersonator Marilyn Monroe (Samantha Morton). They become friends. After Marilyn convinces Michael to move in with her, things get surreal. Marilyn’s home is in a secluded place accompanied with more impersonators including Marilyn’s husband Charlie Chaplin (Denis Lavant) and daughter Shirley Temple (Esme Creed-Miles). Others impersonators that reside here are Abraham Lincoln (Richard Strange), James Dean (Joseph Morgan) and Little Red Riding Hood (Rachel Korine). There is another sub-plot to Mister Lonely, which at first seems out of place but metaphorically fits into themes of existence and identity. It is not imperative to say what it’s about, but it’s funny to see Werner Herzog (Father Umbrillo) as the main character in this story.

What Korine does so unique is provide a mood and essence that stays with you. Mister Lonely can be described as going to Disneyland for the first time through its airy innocence. When you compare this to say Gummo or his screenplay to Ken Park (Clark, 2002), this is quite different. Although there are some darker moments such as suggested rape and a scene involving animals being shot, it’s the original mood that stays strong. Mister Lonely flaunts its rich palate and chiming lullaby score, however it makes you uneasy if you’ve experienced Korine’s films before as most likely you’re thinking at some point in time this should get messy, it never does.

Seeing this film now, it is interesting to note Mister Lonely had a polar reception, reviewers saw this less biting than Korine’s earlier work. Possible. However I fall into the notion that because Korine gives us something ‘lighter’, it is dark in a different sense. It is through the authenticity that these actors present to their identities that make this a commendable but pretty weird experience, not to mention confusing timescape. Adding to this Korine doesn’t use typical characters-hiding-behind-a-mask-cliché, these impersonators are happy and content, it is the outside world Korine presents that are hiding.

Reviewers should celebrate Korine as an auteur and see Mister Lonely as a refreshing piece. It is still a Korine infused piece; it just requires you to soak up the atmosphere differently.

Mister Lonely is a celebration of nostalgia in the most profound and celebrated way.

The Old Dark House

Directed by James Whale

72 Minutes

Adapted from J. B Priestley’s novel Benighted (1927), James’s Whales The Old Dark House (1932), later remade in 1963 by William Castle (which is not meant to be the best) is an atmospheric, social horror. Straightforward in narrative, it is camp and funny in dialogue. In the obvious sense the secluded house and harrowing wind comes across like a cheesy horror flick. This doesn’t help that from 1968 the only version available is a poor film negative. (Universal Pictures lost the film’s rights). Adjacent to this, is its dark tones. Exploration of class and social degenerates is very The Texas Chainsaw Massacre  (Tobe Hooper 1974), but in the same sense, the monster here, is handled with delicacy and believability.

The Old Dark House opens in the worst possible weather conditions. Driving, Philip Waverton (Raymond Massey), his wife Margaret (Gloria Stuart) and friend Roger Penderel (Melvyn Douglas) is stuck in the rainstorm. A landslide occurs and a lit house appears. Hoping to board for the night, the threesome leave the car and arrive at the doorstep. A mute butler (Boris Karloff), pompous man (Ernest Thesiger) and a deaf unsociable woman (Eva Moore) allow them to enter. This is not a cozy house though; it is regulated with rules and ideologies. The setup becomes awkward and uncomfortable as the guests struggle to understand the family’s behaviour. Then another knock occurs and a new couple Sir William Porterhouse  (Charles Laughton) and Gladys DuCane (Lillian Bond) arrive. They too are invited in.

The Old Dark House is a tale of order and anarchy as the five guests learn the secrets of the household and its hidden agenda.  

On the surface The Old Dark House is a horror film through its atmosphere and gothic characters. Proving he is no stranger to this, Whale who had previously made Frankenstein (1931) uses Boris Karloff again and reoccurring themes of destruction. With this in-depth commentary, it could easy be classed as a documentary. Whale challenges both sides of the spectrum but seems to soften the inner persona of the monster. In this case, the family may look odd and have conflicting views to the others guests, but it is these guests that harm and disrupt the household. In a similar but not so nuanced look, Leatherface (Gunnar Hansen) and his family of cannibals are perceived as strange. They live in a ritualistic house, removed from society. Besides the fact, the victims are a group of annoying, middle-class teens, we still root for them to escape. The monsters however, are presented as deranged and harmful, a collective that society needs to escape from. They are never challenged or seen as maybe the victims themselves. 

The Old Dark House resists clichés and laziness. I know this film is before the more obvious horror tropes you can witness now, but it is interesting to see a narrative that doesn't have any. For example the group stays together something that has become formulaic in the genre. Hearing, “You’ll have to come with me” rather than, 'I’ll be right back' is quite logical and goes against the one-by-one-the group- is-slayed. Since you don’t get this here, on cue timing or events leading to suit an outcome isn't the point. The narrative is deadpan and heavy explored giving you well-articulated characters and a narrative worth thinking about. 

The Old Dark House is an honest and confronting look at some of the monsters and clashes we have through our relationship with class. It may lack in quality, but charm certainly makes up for it

Poltergeist

Poltergeist (2015)

Directed by Gil Kenan

93 Minutes

There’s always a part of me that says, why would you remake this. Going by this general rule of thumb doesn’t mean I’m not curious to see what’s different or perhaps the same. Upon hearing and viewing the trailer for the new Poltergeist (Gil Kenan 2015), I tried to stay open minded. As we know, the original Poltergeist (1982) directed by Tobe Hopper and written by Steven Spielberg is a benchmark horror film and great collaborative piece. Spielberg’s whimsy and Hopper’s terror, why would Kenan want to try his luck?

Seeing this new take, I did find (some) good elements.  Nevertheless, even if I did like this version better it wouldn’t be a convincing argument. I know this because when I praise the remake of Carrie (Kimberly Pierce, 2013), I get weird looks. For many, the real audacity here, is remaking a ‘classic.’ I too, shutter at the thought of certain films being remade. However, I have this belief that it shouldn’t discourage people from seeing a different take on things. Therefore, this review is not to dwell on the original, because you know, that’s pointless, it's, its own film. But it does feels right to compare Carrie and Poltergeist collectively. What these remakes do is enhance the narrative through the use of 3D. Although, I did not see Poltergeist in 3D, I really enjoyed Carrie's (Chloë Grace Moretz) telekinesis powers. In much the same way, the inside world where young Madison (Kennedy Clements) is sucked into, is shown. The viewer gets to witness an endless sepia, quite beautiful and very haunting vortex. Had I seen this in 3D, then i'm sure it would have enhanced the film's visual world.  

Yes. Things are amped up and nothing is left to our imagination, but it works, well, for a while anyway. If you can deal with campy ghost hunters and the times too many characters are in the same household, then sure. The inclusion of Sam Rockwell (Eric Bowen) is very Rockwell. Perhaps though, it does feels like he's taking the piss out of the film. As a couple Rockwell and Rosemarie DeWitt (Amy) bond well and do add some much needed spark to their character's story-lines. Where the film falls flat, is through Madison. Madison is just too cute and while this does make you feel sorry for her, she doesn't project her ability to communicate with spirits. Heather O’Rourke (Named Carol, than Madison) was memorable. Not only having that ridiculous blonde hair, but that smirk at the end of the film alludes the poltergeist hasn’t left and she likes having this power. O' Rourke is still sweet but highly manipulative. If this is a comparison, then Madison fails. Or as much Kenan doesn't give any reason as to why this supernatural force is attached to her. This doesn't have to be presented in dialogue but something should be suggested. Unfortunately the major concern here is producing scares, nothing to do with characters or evoking atmospheres. 

Hey, I lied. I didn’t enjoy this version. I did tried though. Had I mention this at the start of my review then you wouldn’t have read on. Overall, Poltergeist is flat and jumps the gun just like Madison is sucked into the TV. From the original, we learn that this is a key moment. It drives the narrative forward and the characters concern of getting her back, but here, this key, empathetic moment is thrown away. 

Initially yeah, scares are well executed. But these scares however, result to obviousness. *Insert creepy clown.  There may be a similar doll is in the original, but this clown, is just too mean.  

I suggest not watching Poltergeist angry or with any expectations of the original, if you do this, then maybe, just maybe, you might find something good.

Transamerica

Transamerica

Directed by Duncan Tucker

103 minutes

Transamerica (Duncan Tucker, 2005) is an independent drama that is warm hearted and dark. It tells the story of a once Stanley, and now Bree (Felicity Huffman). A change both physical and psychological. After Bree is informed of her long lost son Toby, (Kevin Zegers, who looks a lot like Edward Furlong) who’s been jailed for drugs and hustling, Transamerica becomes a story on parenthood. Bree pays the bail fee, unrevealing her identity, and convinces Toby to ride with her to the West Coast. This is in order for Bree to drop Toby at his stepfather's. However, when violence and hidden secrets are revealed, this plan is thwarted. Toby and Bree must seek each other's true identities to resolve family tensions. 

Transamerica is a wholesome, natural film the sort you would struggle to dislike. This is well packed and (somewhat) explicitly shown. Qualifying itself above the rest and definitely a challenge to normative subject matters. Helping to unpack this, is its fun attitude. Like you're watching a John Walters film with hideous pink frills and matriarchal characters it has serious matters like sexually abuse. What I like here, is it's banal and natural it feels like a supportive space to reach out too.  Perhaps in hindsight though, this taboo does pops out of nowhere and I can't help but to think it's being deliberately controversial, that's probably just me. But where Transamerica really excels is showing transsexuality (or  gender dysphoria as it is termed here). Not many narratives show this, and when a character is transexual, it has comedy or tragedy attached to it. The film does have these elements though, but the difference is we are not laughing at Bree, we are laughing with her. Bree is an everyday protagonist like you would see in a hetro-normative role, that's the difference.

As it happens Transamerica has some minor disappointment. My reasoning’s may be more cynicism.  Likewise it has nothing to do with the above mentioned themes or attitude the film displays. It’s about the way the film reached, or not reached potential audiences. Transamerica did won awards in various film festivals and Felicity Huffman won best actress at the Golden Globes, however it seems the film feeds only to an exclusive audience. This is still good, but perhaps these audiences may already be comfortable with these themes, It’s hard to say and I shouldn't generalise. I suppose my biggest gripe, is that the film warns you to bring an open mind. To me, having this display only gives people the opportunity to bypass the film. This is a shame.

The other factor I find strange, is why not use a person who has been through this change? In fairness to Felicity Huffman, her performance is great and convincing to say the least. It’s just that, it would have been more interesting and given the sort of realism it needed. If it managed this, maybe it would have taken these themes and unconventional characters to the next level. In that case then, you would need to bring an open mind. 

It Follows

It Follows

Directed by David John Mitchell

100 minutes

It Follows (David Robert Mitchell) is a new horror film that’s found much attention in its explicit and terrifying context. Directed and written by David John Mitchell, the premise comes from a recurring nightmare he had, whereby someone is following him. In much the same way the main character Jay (Maika Munroe), and somewhat ‘final girl’ becomes trapped inside her own nightmare. This is when Jay sleeps with boyfriend Hugh (Jake Weary) who passes on a sort of STD. Jay becomes plagued by strange visions and like Mitchell’s dream someone follows her.  The carrier can only see the follower(s) and break the curse by sleeping with the next person, exactly what Hugh had done. This proves difficult and challenging since the followers evoke personal trauma to the beholder. The social commentary is what makes this a disturbing experience. The bodily associations such as STD’s that could occur from a ‘one night stand’ or the darker monstrosities like rape and molestation are all very real. This is fused with tragedy, which makes you have empathy and connect to these cases. Jay’s followers are either sinister or victims themselves. Physiological scenarios like mental illness or the battered wife syndrome are cases we understand and handled with thought and respect. Besides, it has been awhile since these themes have been tackled in the horror genre in such a delicate way.

As it turns out though, I found myself enjoying the ambience, more.  It Follows is a minimal, yet pretty grim film but violence and past trauma are only implied. Mitchell, much to my delight distances himself from the “splat pack” (a term associated to directors such as James Wan), but recreates his own version of John Carpenters, Halloween (1978). In the lead-up and night of Halloween, a follower prowls a neighborhood. The follower (Mike Myers) is not a disease, but someone sick. A monster Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) sees and not till the very end others see him, too. In much the same way, Laurie is a final girl, needing to overcome the (masculine) nightmare.

The use of wide shots, voyeurism, and hand held camera not to forget the stripped back and effective score makes this a very haunting and realistic experience. What It Follows manages to do differently, is take out the slasher madman element and present taboos. Even though, Myers does present a form of societal monster, the film is very traditional to the slasher genre and doesn’t budge in that regard. In much the same way, Jay as a final girl is quite different to Jamie through appearance and being sexually active. This is a great juxtaposition, since traditionally, final girl’s don’t have sex. Jay is a beautiful concoction of a victim and an aggressor, with much vulnerability and trauma but at the same time strength and power to overcome her nightmare.

It Follows is a subliminal film that does feels like being, perhaps inside Mitchell’s recurring nightmare. It is very floaty and ambiguous and has the sort of sexual energy of Twin Peaks (Mark Frost, David Lynch 1990). This is not flawless but pretty close to the mark. It does feel like, It follows over stays its welcome, again the more I think about it, the more it works as an anti- narrative that doesn’t give you the answers. Perhaps, because of its dream like narrative there are some awkward moments that don’t seem to work or make sense. However, if you stay with the film then this incoherence and eclipses, kinda work. Meaning, this is a film that can be reevaluated in a different context, or soak up its fragmented truths.