Martha Marcy May Marlene

 If you’re familiar with the series Portlandia you might have seen the skit ‘cult farm’ (series 1), where a couple order chicken and ask the waitress if the chicken was ethically treated, the waitress unfamiliar with such trivia suggests to visit the farm the chicken was raised. The couple do, but become involved in a cult community run by the farm’s male leader and many wives.  This skit sprung to mind while viewing of Martha Marcy May Marlene (2011), directed by Sean Durkin. Although admittedly in a much darker context, we see a similar theme explored.

in an organic community, Marcy May (Elizabeth Olsen) is the name given by the disturbingly good, leader and tryant Patrick (John Hawkes), who strips her of real name Martha and any other identity. Patrick manipulates her into believing she is his favourite but like the other women, she is no more than a gendered body that hangs up clothes and cooks while the men do the physical labour and ‘share’ the women sexually. But Marcy May escapes this commune and hand held camera work reveals a shift in the narrative, moving from Marcy May to Martha.

 Martha is taken on board by her egocentric sister Lucy (Sarah Paulson) and architect boyfriend Ted (Hugh Dancy). She spends the rest of the narrative at their grand holiday house three hours away from the commune. The different lifestyle confuses and challenges Martha, notably as to why their house is so big for only two people. Cutting from the past to the present, we see the different lifestyles accommodated, with naturalistic wide shots of the commune to the sterile cleanliness of the a picture perfect holiday home.

Martha Marcy May Marlene is a brilliant study of Marcy May and or Martha, who cannot differentiate between her past bad experiences in the commune and the current insecurities during time with Lucy and Ted. We learn that each of these dominate personalities(Patrick and Lucy) are as monstrous and self centred as each other and watch the gloomily tragedy that no one can truly wants to help Martha.

Somersault

Somersault (2004) focuses on 16 year old Heidi’s sexual exploration and longing for emotional closeness. The Australian film directed by Cate Shortland was a winner of 13 AFI Awards, winning in every category it was nominated. It stars Abbie Cornish (Heidi) and Sam Worthington (Joe), both pre –Hollywood.

After a confrontation involving kissing her mother’s (Olivia Pigeot) boyfriend (Damian de Montemas), Heidi leaves home in Canberra and escapes to the snow resort town of Lake Jindabyne. Eventually she meets Joe, a local farmer who finds it hard to communicate and yearns for his parent’s affection. This begins their casual and respectful relationship with each other. 

Heidi’s emotions become obsessed and narcissistic, in one scene Heidi uses a mirror to act in a pretend conversation with Joe and watch herself kiss ‘him’. It is a somewhat Travis Bickle (Robert DeNiro, Taxi Driver 1976) moment, from this scene on her character is no longer the same. Even though locals are mesmerised by her beauty, we are aware of the gaze of a potential predator, others are scared and take advantage. Heidi first encounters sleazy shop owner Roy (Paul Gleeson), on the basis of employment after he sizes her up and without hesitation says no. They meet again in the latter half of the film at her co- workers house and he informs her of being a bad influence on her co-worker and the community of Lake Jindabyne. The scene suggests rape, cutting to a vulnerable Heidi taking a bath.

Somersault is a beautiful compelling film that is dark and enriching. Although I look at Heidi’s journey to have reached a sad conclusion, it was r­­eassuring she patches up her relationship with her mother. As we see Heidi looking out her mother’s car window in tears, it can suggest that she may have been ‘rescued’, but does not mean her past is now history. The film subjectively ends for you to decide how you foresee the life of this once confident woman.

Shittown

There was controversy upon release of the film Snowtown (2011), I had even heard viewers to have walked out during its screenings. On a Sunday night about a week after its release I saw the film. As spectators had already fashioned that it was ok to leave the cinema I was determined not to.

It was hard to ignore the film’s hype or fellow friends who described it as ‘full on’, even my own prejudices as former South Australia I wanted it accurately told. When I heard the restaurant Eagle on the Hill mentioned in the film’s dialogue, I was happy. Perhaps only a South Aussie would get the reference to the once tasteful restaurant, (now closed) described on the level of a ‘bogan’. To me this demonstrated the subtlety on the characters the film adheres to throughout.

Directed by Justin Kurzel (his first feature film), along with cinematographer Adam Arkapaw who had previously worked on Animal Kingdom (2010). The film is based on the true events of the eight murdered bodies found in barrels North of Adelaide in Snowtown. These crimes were instigated by the often charismatic John Bunting (Daniel Henshall), whose persona hides a true world of hate within. Bunting manipulates the film’s protagonist Jamie Vlassakis (Lucas Pittaway an amateur found in his local shopping centre) by becoming a father figure, in much the same way as the local community are fooled by his quasi vigilante motifs. Pittaway’s natural and understated performance makes us feel sorry for the path he has crossed. Similarly this conflicting emotion occurs in Dead Man Walking (1995) the film divides between feeling sorry and repulsed by convicted killer Matthew Poncelet (Sean Penn) as well as our attitudes on the death penalty.

As I found myself glued and at no point wanting to leave, Snowtown brought guilty pleasures. I was drawn to its mundane, realistic characters and family orientated activities so familiar to us like breakfast and barbeques. Bunting spends a lot of time in the kitchen stuffing false comfort down both the character and our throats. But Snowtown does not let us get too attached the consumption of food, it becomes as nauseating as the torture scenes. Despite its torture scenes was not to give us a thrill like any torture porn, but to document the truth behind the corruption of an isolated community.

The Snowtown murders is not uncommon to the Australian public and has been well documented to the point of cult status, even today you can drive to Snowtown to buy paraphernalia. However, what is so threatening about the filmic version is its recognisable nature of human characteristics and their collapse, violence aside, Snowtown presents the harsh reality some endure.

“introducing JAMIE LEE CURTIS as Laurie”

It’s Wednesday night, it’s Halloween and what better way to spend it is revisiting John Carpenter’s 1978 classic at the Astor. Getting prepared comes in general horror banter, ‘which is scarier’, Freddy, Jason, or Mike Myers and who, even won out of Freddy vs. Jason (2003)?

Then the iconic credit sequence “introducing JAMIE LEE CURTIS as Laurie” establishes it is show time.

Beginning through the eyes of Michael Myers or as we simply refer to him as ‘Mike’ we get a sneak peek into the evil he breeds. Firstly as a child, through a voyeuristic attack on his sister before he is bound to an asylum, then what becomes his escape fifteen years later and the Halloween night on which he craftily takes down Laurie’s circle of friends. 

It was a boisterous experience seeing Halloween. Hearing the audience interact and embody near death situations. During which, the words, I’ll be right back’ had cropped up. A phrase familiar to the likes of the Friday the 13^th and the Scream narratives was indeed chuckle worthy. But indifferent to the teen slasher sub genre, Carpenter presents a monster that is not afraid to be seen day or night. A predator to the neighbourhood, framed in such a way as to disrupt and spoil what could be a safe picture. Carpenters use of wide angle shots creates disorientation and uneasiness to these streets.

Ending on a montage that looks like a crime scene, it shows us everywhere evil has been. It becomes unsettling after it is revealed Myers’s dead body has disappeared. Like a case for an unsolved massacre, discomfort still lingers on.

It was my third viewing of Halloween, but never I noticed playing on the TV whilst Laurie is babysitting, Howard Hawk’s The Thing from Another World (1951).  A film re-made in 1982 as the Thing, a celebrated and important film yet again from Carpenter.

The Innocents

The Innocents (1961) is indeed haunting, something that I was glad to have watched during the day. Based on Henry James novella ‘the turn of the screw’, it was co-written by Truman Capote and suggested to have inspired Alejandro Amenabar’s film, The Others (2001).

 

Its narrative focuses on Miss Gaddens (Deborah Kerr), a governess hired to take care of two children in a recluse old mansion. Unfortunately for her the mansion is haunted. That is the house is filled with memories of an affair between a valet and a previous governess, who are now both dead. Even though Gaddens believes to have witnessed their ghosts she is told else-wise it’s her imagination. 

The Innocents does not hide its ghostly narrative, or that the film is frightening, but instead enhances it through cinematography and dark compositions. Shot in Kerr’s first person perspective, we get a one on one perspective with the occult as it starts to infuse her persona. Kerr pushes the narrative along with her matron-esque, almost Davis meets Crawford, making it feel natural to sympathize with children, Miles and Flora. However this pair displays innocent and evil binaries, familiar to the Exorcist (1973) and the Omen (1976) archetypes, from which Gaddens domineering actions become justifiable. 

The Innocents is an accessible horror, in its location setting of a gothic mansion in Sussex which breeds paranormal tensions. But once these horror trademarks are removed, it allows us to observe the tragic descent of a women’s journey into madness.

Dude, Where's My Freud?

Ever since I caught up on the 1986 film the Fly, I went through a David Cronenberg ‘body horror’ phase. A technique seen in Cronenberg’s early films like Scanners (1981),VideoDrome (1983) and Dead Ringers (1988). It involves mutating flesh and plenty of graphic gore. Dead Ringers was the last ‘body horror’ film I have seen. Besides being classic Cronenberg, I cannot get his behind the scenes photos out of my head. In particular a picture of him holding a pair of surgical instruments that identical gynaecologist twins (Jeremy Irons) use to perform on ‘mutant women’.

Lately his films have changed, there was A history of Violence (2005) and Eastern Promises (2007), using less visceral violence and moving towards stronger character development. Gone are the days of Geoff Goldbum transformation into a fly, or James Woods ingesting a gun through the wall of his stomach.

His new film, A Dangerous Method (2012) uses Viggo Mortenson for the third time, this time playing Sigmund Freud. Alongside him are Michael Fassbender as Carl Jung and Keira Knightly as Sabina Spielrein. A Dangerous Method wastes no time in setting up the narrative, nor Knightly’s physical and vocal mannerisms. She arrives at a psychiatric hospital in Zurich with a bad case of hysteria and becomes a patient of Jung. The cinematography is enhanced through the warmer tones of the countryside giving her character a sense of freedom. Once Spielrein is forced inside, the camera tightens, its shots becoming more claustrophobic whilst the tones change to the clinical and drab. Jung proceeds to treat Spielrein through the talking cure, a psychoanalysis technique developed by Freud.

In classic Freudian psychoanalysis, Spielrein’s humiliation and sexual arousal began as a child from her father smacking her bare bottom. Gradually Spielrein improves, but Knightly’s character consistency is shown through her continued body spasms. Her improvement is seen through Jung’s eyes, seeing her in a different context, he breaks the patient physician ethics and it turns into an affair. The deliberate uncomfortable sex scenes not only looked like re-enactments of her childhood but became over indulgent and overdone. Sometimes it felt hard to take the film serious. Especially from the pervy camera work that stalked their every encounter.

Most of the audience were laughing or making agreeing sounds that suggested a deeper understanding of psychoanalysis. Interestingly this came from the guy in front of me, who was playing on his phone the whole time. During some of these tedious moments, I started to notice a change in Jung. What first started out as the highest professionalism now came across creepy. Fassbender showed this subtly, through a gradual deterioration Jung became more reminiscent of something typically Cronenberg.

Still, this was not enough. Cronenberg seemed to miss something. It is hard to believe that Freud was even in this film, it seems like he was used only as a spokesperson for his craft. Freud appeared from Jung’s minor visits and was used like a springboard to challenge each other’s methods. More from Freud would have helped add weight and tension to the film. In the few moments we see, Mortensen portrays Freud as arrogant, uppity and stubborn, always puffing on a cigar. This made me want to see more of him, not less.

Whenever A Dangerous Method showed tension, other than on a sexual level, it seems to pull back and gloss over it. This could be put down to the time period it was trying to cover, starting at the advent of World War I right through until World War II, all within the space of 100 minutes. 

A Dangerous Method would have worked better as a miniseries, where it could have explored its characters and given an effective balance to them. But as a film, the acting and cinematography alone did not help the overall structure. The narrative felt unclear and focused on too much of one thing and not enough of another. Like the guy on the phone, I too, wanted to play. The problem was I was hoping for more of that ‘Cronenberg’s’ body horror I once enjoyed.

Terrible Monsters

With an ominous name like Monsters, I thought that this 2010 film directed by Gareth Edwards would be a something I would enjoy. Not only did I like its title, but was under the impression that with a narrative of humans trying to live with aliens (in this case, monsters) I was going to see similar themes as explored in District 9 (2009).  

Now I think to myself, was it just me? Did I miss something? Or was this a film I should just taken for what it was? I realised no.

Monsters tries to open strongly or even ambitiously with its handheld camera work in night vision for us to witness a battle, where guns and missiles are used to attack a gigantic squid-like monster. This then cuts to the disruption of its title Monsters, setting itself up as an appetiser of what’s to come whilst, also implying that there are other monsters….

 When I saw this, I thought of the opening to Children of Men (2006) and similarities of handheld movement that is also interrupted by its title. Children of Men introduces a depressing, futuristic narrative of human infertility leading into a well structured narrative. But with Monsters, there is no connection to its opening sequence, or the military within most of the rest of the film. The film presents that the word ‘monsters’ could in fact be a metaphor for the US government ( funny coming from a British director) and their treatment of South America or Mexican people to be exact. But like the opening, this metaphor is touched upon but never really explored in any real depth, it is just obviously stated.

Obviousness comes also with the two main hipster looking characters, who re- explains any loose ends that had already been suggested or implied. We get to know Andrew, a photojournalist (Scoot McNairy) who has the job of getting his wealthy employer’s daughter back home safely. While, Samantha (Whitney Able) shows off her bilingual skills and complains about her fiancée. Throughout the film we seem to be involved in endless conversations which are deep, deep on a Facebook level.
 

I enjoyed the few times we got to view actual monsters, which gave Edwards a chance to show off his special effects. Or, the occasional time I thought I was watching Avatar (2009), in the films exploration of the way that the two main characters would try to connect with the locals and their habitat.  This was enhanced by the films location shooting and exploration of the culture of the Mexican natives. Although that was what warranted the confusion I had for where Monsters was actually heading or what it was suggesting.

Monsters, like District 9, used improvisation. However, as it is done badly then we get two characters that appear lost, uttering lots of boring dialogue and manage to come across as patronising tourists. Maybe intended, or not, perhaps it’s the two main characters who were the real monsters of the film and killed anything that could have been remotely enjoyable about Monsters.