In a
sordid way, serial killers make good film material as they appeal to
our darker nature lurking deep within us often unawares and
unacknowledged. These movies may serve as a form of catharsis both
for the film-makers and the viewers and by simulating violent
fantasies, both of us hopefully relinquish the need to act out any
such deeds.
I have
seen quite a number of such movies as they are both thrilling and
fascinating, and I stumbled upon the movie Maniac
(2012) through a website, which had listed this film among some of
the best psychological thrillers out there. Then I read more about
the film. It was a remake of the classic 1980 slasher film by the
same name, which I may or may not have seen when I was younger.
There
were, however, three things of interest about this remake: 1) It was
supposedly shot completely from the point of view of the serial
killer. 2) It was associated with some the makers of the French New
Extremity cinema (more about this later). 3) It starred Elijah Wood,
also known as Frodo.
The
last point seemed to me a rather strange choice for casting, but why
not. My wife said that there was always something creepy about this
actor's eyes that she could not shake off and that made him suitable
and eligible for a serial killer role. Besides, if the movie was from
his POV, then there would be basically little acting required on his
part anyhow.
Moreover,
the first point aroused my interest, but I viewed it as a doubtful
procedure, cinematically speaking. How would they manage to pull this
off throughout the film without making it too gimmicky and, more
importantly, without becoming tedious, I asked myself. Although it
would make it interesting to see events through the eyes of the
protagonist, this technique seemed to be killing (ha!) some suspense
as we would know exactly where the serial killer was at all times.
As to
the second point, I feel a kind of love-hate relationship (actually
positioned more firmly on the hate spectrum) in relation to the
French New Wave of Extremity Cinema. Although I think arts should be
generally free of censorship, (note the use of “generally”),
there ought to be certain limits. Films like A
Serbian Film (2010),
with its depiction of violence and unspeakably brutal acts against
infants and children are in no ways my cup of tea or in any ways
worthy of cinematic depiction in my view. (I have not seen the film
and only read about it in reviews whose critics for the most part
told me in unequivocal ways to stay away from this one like hell!)
Yes, I
have my limits. It took me a long time to get ready to watch
Happiness (1998)
by Todd Solondz, mainly because it had a pedophilic character in it
and the film-maker was one who would not shy away from showing the
dark side of humanity. I read articles, I asked friends, and finally
got myself to watch it (after first seeing Solondz's Welcome
to the Dollhouse (1995),
which by the way I found somewhat disturbing but also strangely
funny).
And it
turns out that I simply loved Happiness!
Depressing it was, but it was handled with skill, and it was
strangely enough very funny too. I watched it again this time with my
wife who also enjoyed the film. It turned out that my fear was out of
proportion. Don't get me wrong, there is one particularly
heartbreakingly sad moment in the film, but overall it is worth
watching because it shows us the dark side of humanity without being
too bleak (though borderline) or preachy.
But
there are still a number of films, mainly from the French New Wave of
Extreme Horror that I still shy away from. They include Gaspar Noe's
shocking and prolonged rape scene in Irreversible
(2002) (again based on hearsay) as well as shockers like Martyrs
(2008)
or Inside (2007).
It seems that these movies have the following things in common: They
push the envelope and show graphic scenes of violence and sex.
Mostly, they are attacks on the body, hence the pun with extremity.
They
can be seen as a criticism of how we view, relate to or treat our
bodies or those of others in the modern world. Not unlike the film
Salò
(1975)(again another film I have not seen nor probably will) where
characters are forced to eat excrement (again based on hearsay)
reflecting Pasolini's take on our careless consumption of food. But
again, there are things I would read about but I would
have no specific desire to view them on the screen.
(Do
not despair, I will eventually talk about the movie Maniac
and serial killers! But in the meantime my prelude or digression
shall continue.)
One
regret I have is the watching of Lars von Trier's Antichrist
(2009).
The problem is I should have listened to those who warned me! I
mostly like what Trier brings forth, even his Boss
of it All (2006) I quite
enjoyed and I know that his films can be disturbing. Breaking
the Waves (1996) and
Dancer in the Dark
(2000) left me in temporary states of daze and depression. But those
films were very good, whereas Antichrist
was not.
I do
not think that Trier is a misogynist nor a Nazi for that matter, and
I do not think he should have received the anti-humanitarian award of
Cannes. The film starts off rather well, but goes off track and gets
completely lost in the final twenty minutes or so. There are graphic
depictions of sex and violence, and the ending of the film is rather
silly. But the graphic scenes were uncomfortable, not to say
bordering on disgust, and I cannot unwatch those scenes. Needless to
say, I do not plan to re-watch it nor have I seen this one with my
wife.
One
director who does give me the creeps and who I approach oh so
cautiously is Michael Haneke. His Piano
Teacher (2001) is very
disturbing, but unlike Trier's film Antichrist,
it is also very good although I have no immediate plans of re-watching
it. His Funny Games
(2007) I did not watch until I had read almost every possible review
on it online and when I finally watched it I found it less shocking
than expected (Haneke does not overplay it, and I was more shocked
about the blasé reactions of the parents than the movie itself.) In
this film, Haneke breaks the fourth wall and makes us accomplices
with these evil and twisted serial killers, but there is generally an
underlying sense of dark humor that eases off some of the tension.
Finally,
let us get to the Maniac
remake. The main reason I wanted to watch it was my general interest
in (movies about) serial killers as mentioned above. When they are
well done, those films are disturbing in a good entertaining way.
What had pulled me back a bit was the involvement of Alexandre Aja,
who wrote the script and had had a hand in quite brutal flicks like
the remake of the Hills
have Eyes (2006)
(not seen). And my
sources told me (as was to be expected) that the movie Maniac
does not hold back in nor
pull its punches when it comes to the depiction of violence.
So the
movie started and before the opening credits, there is a sudden scene
of violence that left me speechless. It turned out that the whole POV
was rather unsettling. We get glimpses of the protagonist in mirrors
or rear-view reflections, but more ingeniously, which makes it even
more disturbing, are the scenes of his hallucinations. In those
situations, the killer has out-of-body experiences and in which he
sees himself committing the acts from the outside.
Yet
apart from the gore, there is also the element of somewhat
identifying and empathizing with this demented character. We see the
world through his eyes, how he feels compelled to commit atrocious
acts due to his schizophrenia and his troubled past with his imposing
and frightening mother.
Freud
would have had a field day with this film as it deals with the
protagonist's obsessions of sex and death in a way I had not seen on
the screen previously. In another intense moment of hallucination, he
sees himself as sexless just like his mannequins. He kills and then
scalps his women because hair is what endures longer than other body
parts and he places (and staples!) the hair of his victims on top of
his immaculately cared-for mannequins.
Off
and on, the mannequins come to life and talk to him, often
reprimanding him. Although we know this is another one of his
hallucinations, all we get is his point of view, and we cannot seem
to be able to get out of his head. In other words, we alongside the
killer feel compelled to kill and this is what makes this film unique
in my eyes. The whole POV is used both skillfully and with purpose,
and although the director cheats a couple of times, it is a poignant
technique. Unlike other horror films where the women do not know when
they will be attacked, we are waiting in the bushes to attack with
the killer so-to-speak.
It
sure helps to have a killer (ha!) soundtrack that is both moving and
haunting by a French musician who simply calls himself Rob. If you
are into psychological movies and can handle your level of gore with
a good dose of unease, or if you simply want to see what goes on in
the mind of a serial killer, this movie is one to watch. As to the
other movies mentioned here, especially the ones pertaining to the
Extremity Wave, I have currently no intention of watching, let alone
recommending them. If I do bring myself around to watching them
(curiosity is a strong emotion after all that can even kill cats), I
will let you know in an upcoming post.
No comments:
Post a Comment