Three movies I watched this weekend (it was that sort of a weekend):
Seven Psychopaths: I expected this to be funnier than it was. Though there were still certainly moments where I laughed, it was more of a barked shocked laughed than a laugh of genuine pleasure. It was directed by the same person who did In Bruges, a similar dark comedy, but I feel like the story was too spread-out in this one, and it lacked the (albeit messed-up) heart. Also, the women in the film were basically non-existent and drawn as horrible caricatures. One literally existed to show up in her underwear and then be shot; the only place she was clothed was on the movie poster. This was actually addressed in the film (the main character was a screenwriter, and he was accused of not knowing how to write women), but I don't know if that really addressed the situation enough to make it okay. Of course, Christopher Walken was there, and he was, as always, a creepy delight. Christopher Walken plays, naturally, Christopher Walken, but since he is better at that than I am at playing Lauren off-camera, I always enjoy his addition to a film.
Hunger: This film depicts the situation of IRA political prisoners in 1981, ending with the hunger strike and death of Bobby Shaw. It is goddamned brutal. The prisoners, in attempt to earn political status, go on "blanket" strikes where they refuse to dress in anything other than a blanket, and "no-wash" strikes, where they, well, refuse to groom themselves and make their cells as disgusting as possible: smearing food and excretions on the walls and such. The prisoners are also brutally treated: beaten, forcibly searched, and so on. At the same time, the guards live in fear and some are even killed on the street for being prison guards. The IRA at this point considered itself to be a resisting army, but they often used terrorist methods. This fact raises interesting questions: is there such a thing as political murder? when prisoners refuse their rights, which basic rights do they retain? should hunger strikes even be permitted? and so on. The film itself, though, mainly served to make me just feel uncomfortable and sad. I know that life can be dark, and I know that things so often don't have a resolution or answer. Still, making a film just to shine a bright light on a hard bit of history must have a purpose. It's just not one that I often understand.
Ruby Sparks: This movie is about a deeply unstable young writer who published his first wildly-successful novel at age nineteen. Now, ten years later, he's adrift and alone, unable to write and without friends beyond his brother and dog. He has a dream about a woman, and starts to write a novel about her. One day, this same woman appears in his apartment. He has created her, and he can control her though his writing. For a long time, he refuses to write anything about her, but when she grows unsatisfied with their relationship, he starts to change her. This eventually culminates in a horrible scene in which he forces her to bark like a dog, jump around, declare him a genius, enumerate the ways in which she loves him, and so on. It is a horrible, horrible scene that has such undertones of rape and abuse that it literally made my stomach clench up. He does eventually "release her," but you never see any real repentance in the character; to my reading he did this feeling like a benevolent god, and he, sure enough, gets his reward in the end. I enjoyed a lot of this movie, and its thoughts on loneliness and the depths to which a person is willing to crawl in the name of "love" and control. The last twenty minutes made me hate it, though. I ended it so angry. I don't want this horrible character, who shows no true repentance, to have a happy ending.
Seven Psychopaths: I expected this to be funnier than it was. Though there were still certainly moments where I laughed, it was more of a barked shocked laughed than a laugh of genuine pleasure. It was directed by the same person who did In Bruges, a similar dark comedy, but I feel like the story was too spread-out in this one, and it lacked the (albeit messed-up) heart. Also, the women in the film were basically non-existent and drawn as horrible caricatures. One literally existed to show up in her underwear and then be shot; the only place she was clothed was on the movie poster. This was actually addressed in the film (the main character was a screenwriter, and he was accused of not knowing how to write women), but I don't know if that really addressed the situation enough to make it okay. Of course, Christopher Walken was there, and he was, as always, a creepy delight. Christopher Walken plays, naturally, Christopher Walken, but since he is better at that than I am at playing Lauren off-camera, I always enjoy his addition to a film.
Hunger: This film depicts the situation of IRA political prisoners in 1981, ending with the hunger strike and death of Bobby Shaw. It is goddamned brutal. The prisoners, in attempt to earn political status, go on "blanket" strikes where they refuse to dress in anything other than a blanket, and "no-wash" strikes, where they, well, refuse to groom themselves and make their cells as disgusting as possible: smearing food and excretions on the walls and such. The prisoners are also brutally treated: beaten, forcibly searched, and so on. At the same time, the guards live in fear and some are even killed on the street for being prison guards. The IRA at this point considered itself to be a resisting army, but they often used terrorist methods. This fact raises interesting questions: is there such a thing as political murder? when prisoners refuse their rights, which basic rights do they retain? should hunger strikes even be permitted? and so on. The film itself, though, mainly served to make me just feel uncomfortable and sad. I know that life can be dark, and I know that things so often don't have a resolution or answer. Still, making a film just to shine a bright light on a hard bit of history must have a purpose. It's just not one that I often understand.
Ruby Sparks: This movie is about a deeply unstable young writer who published his first wildly-successful novel at age nineteen. Now, ten years later, he's adrift and alone, unable to write and without friends beyond his brother and dog. He has a dream about a woman, and starts to write a novel about her. One day, this same woman appears in his apartment. He has created her, and he can control her though his writing. For a long time, he refuses to write anything about her, but when she grows unsatisfied with their relationship, he starts to change her. This eventually culminates in a horrible scene in which he forces her to bark like a dog, jump around, declare him a genius, enumerate the ways in which she loves him, and so on. It is a horrible, horrible scene that has such undertones of rape and abuse that it literally made my stomach clench up. He does eventually "release her," but you never see any real repentance in the character; to my reading he did this feeling like a benevolent god, and he, sure enough, gets his reward in the end. I enjoyed a lot of this movie, and its thoughts on loneliness and the depths to which a person is willing to crawl in the name of "love" and control. The last twenty minutes made me hate it, though. I ended it so angry. I don't want this horrible character, who shows no true repentance, to have a happy ending.
No comments:
Post a Comment