Join the Comic-Con group
Advertisement

Wicked Fun

  • Young Adam: Fly on a tit

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Carnal Knowledge  (1971)

    River's Edge  (1986)

    Young Adam  (2003)

    Roughly two-thirds of the way into Young Adam we see the antihero, Joe, thrash, degrade and rape his girlfriend, Cathie, with revved up jazz playing in the background. Afterwards, he clearly regrets this sickening outburst: the most emotion his character has shown till that moment; most likely an outpouring of unconscious rage. Sadly, and consider for a moment the implications of this, it is the most engaging scene in the film. Like Carnal Knowledge’s Jonathan Fuerst and Damage’s Stephen Fleming, Joe is driven to compulsive, joyless sex. He skulks about, scowling, dressed like a thief or scavenger, usually clad in varying degrees of black. Early in the film we see him smeared in it from head to toe.

    The press kit describes Young Adam as a thriller, based, I suppose, on the discovery of a corpse at the outset of the film. It’s inevitable that publicists will find an angle to promote their product, but why settle for such a reductive gloss? It’s like calling To Kill a Mockingbird  a “courtroom drama.” Young Adam is neither paced nor structured like a thriller. Dramatic tension does not emerge from the death in question, or its resolution. It is a nasty, chilly, solemn piece of work: intriguing but not compelling. Depraved but not provocative. Dense, but oddly unsatisfying.

    Sony Classics Pictures protested the MPAA’s NC-17 rating of the film, when they should have been pouring the champagne. For good or ill (and despite evidence to the contrary) it still implies a wicked, dirty rush and will probably do more to reap audience turnout than word-of-mouth. The sex in Young Adam is dirty, and yes, wicked, but it’s also squalid and empty. The only danger I can detect to our nation’s youth is that it could quite possibly put them off sex forever. Slow, ruminant and often lit like Van Gogh’s The Potato Eaters, Young Adam holds our attention because the characters are murky, ambiguous, and obtuse.

    Director David Mackenzie doles out information with extreme care, parsing out just enough to tantalize and keep us involved in Joe’s “journey.” Joe cohabitates with a couple (Ella and Les) who live and work on a barge, and has an affair with the wife. Before finding them he lives as a writer with his lover Cathie. The action jumps forward and backward in time, distinctions between past and present are blurred, gradually we are given clues to his enigmatic psyche. He saves a boy from drowning but not his lover. He watches as a black fly malingers at Ella’s breast, without shooing or killing it. At the supper table, a thin swath of milk drizzles slowly down his face.

    It may always be a matter of debate whether a film needs sympathetic characters to involve us. I’m guessing they chose Ewan MacGregor to play Joe, hoping he could play the character without losing the audience. MacGregor probably did as well as anyone could. You could argue that Young Adam feels hollow at the center because it reflects the spiritual bankruptcy of its protagonist. But is this the best way to convey content? Does re-created experience yield sensibility? Joe is probably meant to seem amoral. He’s not sinister, really, but promiscuous and robotic. As if he were acting out. When he climbs into bed next to Cathie after the previously mentioned episode of spontaneous abuse, we can see the remorse on his face, but our sympathy is for her.

    Perhaps the title suggests the first man, before he understood the difference between right and wrong. I don’t think it takes a lot of extrapolation to detect an Oedipal dynamic, either. Among other things Oedipus was an interloper, an opportunist. Ella gives Joe preferential treatment. He spies on Ella and Les while they’re having sex (an act repeated by their son) and eventually supplants Les in bed. He has sex with Ellas’s sister, whose husband was killed in a traffic accident. He explodes when his girlfriend objects to supporting him.

    Amorality and turpitude are not exactly unexplored cinematic territory. But when the lights come up after Young Adam, we don’t feel the revulsion or taint or despair we do after a film like River’s Edge or Crash or Dead Ringers. We feel nothing. The trial does beg the question of Joe’s conscience, we can see he’s unnerved about the plumber’s fate. But even the ending is irresolvable, we can’t tell if he’s discarding his narcissism or his attachment to Cathie. Joe struggles, in his way, but has no epiphanies. No consequences. Mackenzie makes it impossible to identify with Joe or pass judgment on him. Young Adam is too detached for it’s own good.


  • The Pope On Roller Skates: Constantine

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Blade Runner  (1982)

    From square one Constantine has that sort of comic book feel to it. Based on the graphic novel: Hellblazer by Kevin Brodbin, Mark Bomback and Frank Capello, the shot composition, the framing, it has that kind of immediacy and salience that connects forcefully. And it brought other films to mind as well, the neo noir of Blade Runner,  the exponential special effects of Indiana Jones by way of Angelheart: a fusion of voodoo, Roman Catholicism and detective films like The Maltese Falcon and The Big Sleep with an emotionless hero who isn’t bad enough to be wicked and isn’t good enough to be noble. In a way, John Constantine is the fulfillment of a long succession of disaffected screen detectives. Keanu Reeve’s lack of emotional range and personal investment is perfect for this role, he can pass it off as apathy or smoldering rage. Don’t get me wrong. Constantine is a great ride, the undercurrent of despair mitigated by shimmering, seething special effects and the twisted withering comedic turns as our hero banters with angels, demons, and their half-mortal counterparts who wander, as he does.Constantine deals in a lot of theological and occult mumbo-jumbo. I am not saying that theology and the occult are mumbo-jumbo, only that in this movie, it all comes at you so thick and fast that trying to make sense of it would only detract from the visceral pleasure of just enjoying it as a busy, dizzy, cinematic roller coaster, steeped in gothic, icky-dreamy iconography. Just when you think you should be taking it seriously another bit of goofiness comes along, and you can exhale. Constantine jerks you back and forth between this stunning, breathtaking imagery and these bleak milieus, where the characters exchange wry remarks to keep them from submerging in despair. One of the great things about this film is how it deals in colossal issues with such utter lack of gravity. It’s just all in a day’s work for John Constantine. His co-star, Rachel Weisz, in the duel-role of detective Angela Dodson and her twin sister Isabel, is as achingly gorgeous as ever, and has just the right touch of grimness and vulnerability.

    Director Francis Lawrence is clever in many ways, undercutting the warring factions of Heaven and Hell while continuing to do them justice. Detective John Constantine is more or less caught in the crossfire. Consider an encounter between he and the Angel Gabriel at a liturgical library. Gabriel is played by Tilda Swinton, with her customary eclat and stylish androgyny, wearing a man’s suit. I don’t say this lightly, the fact that Lawrence dresses his key players like fashion models is just yet another way he nudges us in the ribs. Satan in his white summer threads might be a high dollar pimp or bookie. After discussing Constantine’s plight, in appropriately solemn and sanctimonious tones, Gabriel sums it all up by telling him, “You’re fucked!” It’s surprising and funny and I believe this was Lawrence’s intent. Like all other entities, at least in the universe of this film, angels have their own agenda, and the longer the movie goes the clearer it becomes that it’s all in raucous fun. More than once it reminded me of Kevin Smith’s Dogma, only without the waffling.

    A great asset to Constantine is the strength of its supporting characters. I never got the feeling that any of the actors were functioning as scaffolding for the stars. Like many of the second string performers in Blade Runner they all seem self-possessed, quirky, solid and busy with their own lives. An excellent example is Shia LaBeouf as Chaz Chandler, Constantine’s disgruntled protege’. You may remember him from Holes, and like the rest, you can tell he was cast after much consideration. At first he seems like a kvetch, but gradually we come to sympathize. I think Constantine succeeds because it’s all just too too much. It’s witty but unimpressed with its own wit. Its scary but funny scary, gaspy resonant scary. The script is just Byzantine enough to be intriguing. It’s like the pope on roller skates, a nun on a pogo stick, Shiva on a trampoline, the devil riding a nuclear missile. It seems inspired by the lyrics of REM: “It’s the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.” And ironically, it’s got sequel written all over it. Yeah!

     

    Keanu Reeves - John Constantine, Rachel Weisz - Angela Dodson/Isabel Dodson, Shia LaBeouf - Chaz Chandler, Djimon Hounsou - Papa Midnite, Max Baker - Beeman, Pruitt Taylor Vince - Father Hennessy, Gavin McGregor Rossdale - Balthazar, Tilda Swinton - Gabriel, Jesse Ramirez - Scavenger, Michelle Monaghan - Ellie, Larry Cedar - Vermin Man, Suzanne Whang - Mother, Johanna Trias - Possessed Girl


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<May 2007>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
293012345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
3456789


Categories
 


Advertisement