JimBell
Posts 149
|
4/2/2009 3:29 AM
posted awhile ago
Re:Le Tueur (The Killer) from Evokative Films
Note: I cannot post this review on my blog because no "Save" button appears. Nor can I post it to the Spout database of movies and thus automatically to my blog, because it does not seem to be one of the more than 300 movies that come up when I search for The Killer (2007). So I will post the review below.
Cedric Anger is quite clear about what he tried to accomplish in Le Tueur or The Killer (2007). As a former movie critic for the esteemed Cahiers du Cinema, Anger thought out his directorial debut carefully. In a nutshell, he wanted to create “a false genre film.” That is, you would think a film entitled The Killer would be some kind of action flick, maybe a thriller. But the film, albeit replete with plot twists, is about how a killer gets caught up in the orbit of the man he is supposed to kill.
This might lead you to guess that the film is a psychological study of a killer, but Anger had the purpose of avoiding in-depth character study and, instead, of keeping his characters mono-dimensional. He wanted to focus on their actions not their psychology. He wanted to make “a dreamlike meditation on these figures in this neighbourhood in eastern Paris.” He accomplished half of this objective. The characters are one dimensional—they have no past, no future, just present behaviour. We don’t know what Leo (Gilbert Melki), the high-rolling businessman did to have a contract killer after him—although near the end, a plot twist lets us in on the secret. We don’t know what Kopas (Gregoire Colin), the killer, thinks about his assignment, where he came from, where he is going—although near the end, we get glimpses. The characters have just enough going on to make them somewhat interesting, though not particularly likable. While succeeding in making somewhat flat characters, Anger failed to make “a dreamlike meditation.” Although there may be translation problems from French to English, “meditation” usually means “deep, continued thought,” and there is purposely almost no depth and no exploration of the issues surrounding the actions. Nor is The Killer dreamlike. It actually has a robust plot to keep you going.
Counter to the usual genre concern with “effective” scenes, Anger wanted “a slow pace, with slippage.” The pace is slow compared to current hyperactive cinema. But there is enough suspense to keep things moving. As for slippage, I love the term, and there is just enough to document the quotidian. For example, when the killer and the target ride the elevator and exist, the camera stays put to show a businessman getting on. Another kind of “slippage” is the relaxed editing of several scenes; for example, when a VW car stalks Leo, we watch Leo make three or four routine efforts to get away before he gives up. Ironically, this gives The Killer a realistic feel, not what Anger wants.
Anger tries to show that “there is a secret connection between them [the two men].” Rather than doing this through psychological exploration or through dialogue, Anger tries unsuccessfully to do it through two filming techniques. First, what the businessman does in his world, the killer often does in his. Although I noticed this, I thought is was simply a continuity measure, and a smart one at that. Second, the camera occasionally dissolves, giving you a sense—maybe—of fading from one life to the other. The film, however, does not depend on these filming techniques to establish that Leo and Kopas have an unusual connection—we’re just not certain how their interdependence will develop.
I think Anger underestimates what a good plot he has going here, and how important it is for the success of the film.
|
|