Yes, I finally got around to watching Antichrist. I’ve always been a von Trier hater, but there was so much talk about this film last year, and it’s Instant on Netflix, so I couldn’t stay away. At the outset, I’ll say these two things: 1) I really liked it, and I’m glad I watched it. 2) I still think Lars von Trier is a raving misogynist (even on the “male film auteur” scale, which sets the bar pretty high).
Visually, von Trier reaches a new level with this film. Every shot is gorgeous, even the ones that are terrifying and disgusting. He seems to have let go of the last vestiges of the Dogma 95 aesthetic and embraced a lush, painterly style of filmmaking that’s relatively unconcerned with realism (being anti-realism myself, I’m in favor of this). I loved the way the shots of the woods have a kind of ripple to them, hinting that reality is in flux. The surreal scenes with the animals were also great, particularly the one with the fox. I had heard about the fox plenty of times, but I still wasn’t prepared for what it was actually like. In fact, I think I exclaimed to my roommates, “That’s the best thing I’ve ever seen in a movie!” It probably can’t really contend for that honor, but it was an amazing moment.
In addressing the misogyny, I don’t want to give the impression that I think von Trier is putting forward some sort of coherent anti-woman message. The characters discuss the idea that women are inherently evil, but I don’t really think the film comes down on either side of that question. Of course, not coming down on the “of course they’re not, that’s stupid” side of that particular question implies a degree of misogyny all on its own. If I’m charitable toward von Trier, I could say that he’s trying to work out his own deeply ingrained personal issues with women, in the same way that Charles Bukowski and R. Crumb do in their work. If I’m less charitable (which I’m inclined to be, since it’s von Trier), I might suggest that he knows that a huge contingent of filmgoers think he hates women, and he’s pushing their (our) buttons on purpose. If you’ve ever seen him interviewed, or watched The Five Obstructions, you have to admit that seems like him.
I’ll also add that horror is clearly the genre von Trier was meant for, and I hope he sticks with it for a while. His storytelling style revolves around a continual escalation of misfortune for his protagonist. In a melodrama (even one in which Björk sings) this becomes unbearable, because the tragedy gets worse and worse to the point that it no longer seems even vaguely realistic. In a horror film, on the other hand, this works perfectly. You start with a couple fighting, escalate, escalate, genital mutilation, escalate, one of them strangles and burns the other one- congrats, you’ve made a successful (and very creepy) horror movie.
And yes, I realize I’ve spent this entire review talking about Lars von Trier and his past work, but I feel like he’s the kind of artist who makes it impossible not to do that. After all, he certainly wants the attention.
I definitely have mixed feelings about the trailer for the new version of The Wolfman.
First off, I think Benicio del Toro is the perfect choice to play the Lon Chaney, Jr. role. He has a similar “lumpy but handsome” look, and he can pull off that constant expression of worry that Chaney did so well. I’m much less excited about Anthony Hopkins replacing Claude Rains as the father. Rains was an amazing actor who delighted in every role, giving it his best regardless of the quality of the production. Hopkins, especially in the last few years, seems to get by mostly on just the perception that he’s a great actor, rarely putting too much effort into anything. The old Gypsy woman who was so important in the original, and played beautifully by Maria Ouspenskaya, is barely in the trailer (but she is played by Altman alum Geraldine Chaplin). Instead, we get a lot of Emily Blunt in the Evelyn Ankers role (although in this version she seems to actually like Larry, instead of just putting up with him) and a newly added Scotland Yard detective played by Hugo Weaving.
As good an actor as Weaving is, his presence and other additions to the story make me worry a bit. I’m not the sort who thinks you should never change anything when you remake an old film. The 1941 Wolfman is pretty dated, and changing the setting to Victorian times will probably make a lot of the elements work better. However, there are so many different things going on in this trailer that I’m worried the film is going to be as bloated as Peter Jackson’s King Kong. All the stuff with the mental institution, the ice bath, Larry tied to a chair in some kind of auditorium… Let’s just say I have my doubts. One of the strengths of the original is what a tight little story it is. The image of the Wolfman bounding across the rooftops of London is an appealing one, but I dread the long progression of tedius scenes it may take to get him there.
Visually, though, the film and its title creature look great. I’m extremely happy they kept the werewolf makeup pretty similar to the classic version, with a little bit of Oliver Reed’s Curse of the Werewolf mixed in. We’ve seen so many long-snouted CGI behemoths in the last few years that it’s nice to see they didn’t forget that this is the Wolfman. There are also plenty of shots of the sort of misty fairy tale forest that gave the original its atmosphere. It’s just sharing screen time with a rather clichéd Victorian asylum.
Count Dracula has become such a deeply ingrained part of our culture that at first glance he looks more like a cliché than a character. He appears in pop songs, candy commercials, and newspaper comics. Variations adorn cereal boxes and teach children math. According to IMDb, he’s been portrayed in 217 movies and television series, starting with 1922′s Nosferatu. He’s so ubiquitous that it’s easy not to think about him at all. Recently, though, I’ve been thinking about him a lot.
The catalyst was a viewing of Guy Maddin’s Dracula: Pages from a Virgin’s Diary. Maddin’s collaboration with the Royal Winnipeg Ballet is a totally unique film, despite tackling such a well worn story. It’s not the usual sort of recording of a staged ballet; it’s a silent film in which dance is used in place of conventional acting. That’s not to say that no acting goes on. The dancers excel at capturing emotion in their faces, it’s just that they also express themselves through their bodies in ways no non-dancing actor could. Zhang Wei-Qiang is a fantastic dancing Dracula, and Tara Birtwhistle is probably the most memorable Lucy I’ve ever seen. Refreshingly, the film takes for granted that the audience knows the basic story by now, which enables the action to dig deeper into imagery and symbolism than would be possible while making room for exposition.
In his DVD commentary, Maddin says, “I don’t think Dracula really exists. He’s just an embodiment of female lust and male jealousy.” It’s a hard theory to disagree with. Count Dracula is a Victorian English nightmare of a dangerous foreigner whose unwelcome presence lures formerly chaste women away from their respectable English husbands. He’s simultaneously cultured and animalistic, irresistable and yet tainted with ill-defined disease. Of course, it’s not just women who are drawn to him. In some takes on the story, Dracula only seduces Jonathan Harker to get to his fiancé Mina, and in other versions it’s the other way around. Regardless, he clearly has his way with both of them, not to mention Renfield and Lucy along the way. He keeps a harem of three beautiful female vampires, but seems to use them mostly to lure in male guests, like the stereotypical gay predator with a stack of playboys in his drawer. He’s not bisexual so much as haemosexual- if there’s blood in your veins, that’s enough to get Dracula going.
There’s a vulnerable side to Dracula too, although Maddin chooses not to explore that. In Bram Stoker’s novel, though, there are hints of it. Count Dracula is a relic of time long gone, who finds himself in a world that’s changing at an ever-increasing rate. After centuries in his castle in the undeveloped East, he moves to England because that’s where things are happening. In the Dark Ages, an established vampire could stay in one place indefinitely, picking off untraceable travelers and uneducated peasants who would never dare come after him with torches and stakes. After all, as a member of the nobility, the Count had the authority to take whatever he wanted from his subjects, even their blood. With the spread of industrialization, everything begins to change. Dracula’s doing his best to adjust, to keep up, to try new things, but change isn’t easy for a man whose heart stopped beating centuries ago.
In Bela Lugosi’s legendary performance in Tod Browning’s Dracula, we see a count who is imposing while still seeming immaterial. He moves and speaks at a different speed and rhythm from those around him, as though living partly in a different dimension. Some of this is certainly just Lugosi being an oddball and not too good at English, but that’s why he’s synonymous with the part. He’s sad and angry and lustful all at the same time, but beneath these recognizable emotions lurk more primal and unfathomable motivations. He’s part ghost and part animal, and still working on teaching himself to act like a man.
Of course, there have been plenty of other interesting Counts between Lugosi and Zhang. Christopher Lee was the reigning cinematic Dracula for nearly two decades, and he brought a masculine ferocity to the role, but all of the movies were sadly lacking. Jack Palance, Louis Jourdan, and Frank Langella all did Draculas that are worth checking out, although none of them stand up to the classics. Gary Oldman is quite good in Bram Stoker’s Dracula, despite being hampered by too many make-up changes and a miscast Jonathan and Mina. The first Dracula I have memories of was Duncan Regehr in The Monster Squad, who does a great job embodying the composite Dracula who exists in the imagination of every American child.
As many cinematic Draculas as there have been in the past eight decades, there will certainly be many more in the future. It’s doubtful any will make the same kind of impression as Browning and Lugosi, but hopefully a few will offer a variation as unique as Maddin and Zhang. After all, the greatest thing about characters who penetrate the cultural consciousness and stick around forever is that once we’ve learned who they are, we get to see how many different ways we can look at them.
Short on time lately, because I’m in the midst of a big move, but there’s not much to say about Orphan anyway.
First of all, don’t bother. I went in expecting it to be enjoyably bad, and mostly it was just boringly mediocre. Jaume Collet-Serra (whose IMDb page makes me embarrassed that I chose to watch something he directed) tries to maintain a slow burn of suspense for most of the film, but he’s just not a good enough director to pull it off. There’s a huge chunk of the movie’s middle where it’s been revealed to the audience that Little Orphan Esther is crazy/evil (which we knew going in anyway), but the other characters are getting a painfully slow series of hints that there might be a problem. Even when the rest of the family is catching on, they spend way too much time trying to go about their regular lives, while Esther’s actions just escalate. By the time the climax finally comes, the audience is half asleep and no longer cares.
The one positive thing I have to say about this movie is that Isabelle Fuhrman, the young actor who plays Esther, gives a really incredible performance. The script asks things of her that no 11-year-old should be expected to pull off, but she totally does. My hope is that she continues to find work as she gets older, and avoids horror movie “creepy girl” typecasting. Unfortunately, it seems the next thing on her plate is a television remake of Children of the Corn, which doesn’t bode well.
Count Dracula has become such a deeply ingrained part of our culture that at first glance he looks more like a cliché than a character. He appears in pop songs, candy commercials, and newspaper comics. Variations adorn cereal boxes and teach children math. According to 
