Skip to main content

This dog is my Patty Hearst.


Seven Psychopaths
(2012)

Martin McDonagh’s In Bruges is one of my favourite films of the past decade, hilarious and profound in equal measure. His follow-up may lack Bruges’ emotional through line, and thus its resonance, but in its own way Seven Psychopaths is just as perfectly formed.


Anyone who has seen the trailer for the film would be forgiven that this is the sub-Tarantino knock-off that some critics have dismissed it as. It features Christopher Walken, after all. It’s very funny little preview, and the use of the track Rocket Scientist suggests a whacky tone not so far from a more wired version of Elmore Leonard’s Get Shorty (the film of which rode the post-Pulp Fiction wave of the reinvigorated crime genre). As such, I can understand the dismissive view that this is about 15 years too late, and is just riffing on material we’ve seen riffed on many times before. But, if Tarantino is the reigning king of the post-modern mélange, McDonagh’s has created a meta-commentary on Quentin’s so-cool-but-oh-so-very-shallow obsessions.


Although Psychopaths is very much its own beast, I was frequently put in mind of the Coen Brothers, whether it’s the movie business satire of Barton Fink or the imbecilic small-time crime of The Big Lebowski and Burn After Reading. There’s even a touch of the more affecting sequences in No Country For Old Men (which also features Woody Harrelson). Coen regular Carter Burwell’s score only encourages such associations.


But even with Fink, the Coens aren’t really inviting the audience to admit the artificiality of the movie itself. McDonagh’s film is willfully self-reflexive, only stopping short of having characters directly addressing the camera (which I think would have worked; I was half expecting a final admittance by the film of it’s own fictionality that never comes).


Colin Farrell plays Marty (thankfully with his own accent; the actor’s best work invariably keeps him Irish), a borderline alcoholic screenwriter who has got little further than coming up with the title for his script (the same one as the movie). Marty’s friend Billy Bickle (Sam Rockwell) is an out-of-work actor with a sideline in dognapping. He and his partner Hans (Walken) abduct dogs and return them to their owners, gratefully accepting any cash rewards offered. It quickly becomes clear that Billy is, by way of anecdotes, providing Marty with most of the inspiration for his characters, although the latter is reluctant to let him co-write the screenplay. But Marty’s fictional creations begin to merge with reality when he becomes embroiled in the repercussions of the theft of a Shih Tzu belonging to gangster Charlie Costello (Harrelson).


Revealing any more would upset the cleverness of McDonagh’s confabulation and his deft character reveals. Suffice to say, he employs onscreen titles whenever one of the psychopaths is identified (again, a common stylistic choice in the modern crime movie). Throughout, characters tell tales that bear fruit further down the line, usually in the form of blackly humourous twists. And, when Marty and Billy argue over the merits of a particular approach to storytelling, the film itself soon adopts of these devices (Marty’s idea for the characters to spend the last half of his film camped out in the desert, in a life-affirming, non-violent conclusion).

Billy: Life affirming, shmife affirming. It’s about seven fucking psychopaths.

Hans chips in with his own analysis.

Hans: I’ve been reading your movie. Your women characters are awful.


Some have laid the charge that a smart alec line like this gives McDonagh a get-out for poorly written female characters, but it would hardly be an accurate reflection of the movies it is critiquing if Abbie Cornish and Olga Kurylenko had been given fully-rounded roles. Not long after, the point is underlined when McDonagh reveals Abbie Cornish bouncing about in a wet t-shirt. 


There’s even a line observing that, in Hollywood, “you can’t let the animals die, just the women”. This was in direct response to a scene that was criticised in his original script. Perhaps as a consequence, McDonagh relishes the depiction of cutesy animals as a contrast to the carnage on display. In particular, the bunny rabbits take on Pythonesque (Holy Grail, that is) levels of surreality.


But, even though she isn’t excluded from Hans’ meta-critique, the most poignant moments all feature his wife Myra (Linda Bright Clay, who leaves an indelible impression in just a couple of scenes). Indeed, scenes such as these pack a punch absent from most of what we see from Tarantino and his “too cool for school” imitators. The dialogue also frequently appears as a direct rebuke of Hollywood’s more adolescent genre doodling (McDonagh and his brother consistently utilize such conventions, and the tone seems more affectionately self-aware than caustically scathing).

Hans: You’re the one who thought psychopaths were so interesting. They get kind of tiresome after a while, don’t you think?

The intimation throughout that the biggest failing of anyone is not the widespread sociopathy encountered but Marty’s alcoholism is just icing on the cake.


As with everything the McDonagh brothers have written, the script is stuffed wall-to-wall with dialogue to relish.

Marty: This Buddhist psychopath, he doesn’t believe in violence. I don’t know what the fuck he’s going to do in the movie.


This will be surely be one of the most quoted movies of the next few years;

Bllly: This dog is my Patty Hearst.
Billy: Ghandi was wrong. It’s just nobody’s got the balls to say it.
Billy: Are we making French movies now?
Hans: I’d have made a great Pope. I’m very lenient.
Charlie: He doesn’t have a gay head. He has a normal head.
Hooker: I’ve been reading a lot of Noam Chomsky lately.
Zachariah: Tuesday doesn’t really work for me. Can I get back to you? (needs context, I know)


McDonagh’s films may not have met with huge box office returns, but he’s clearly made a big impression in the acting community. The cast is an embarrassment of riches. In the first scene, he has two Boardwalk Empire stars cameoing as a sly wink to the audience. Farrell makes a fine foil for his larger-than-life co-stars, and he’s the perfect vessel for delivering McDonagh’s lines. Rockwell is never better, a naturally hyper-kinetic presence given the chance to bounce around in a ball of manic energy. Walken’s the most memorable he has been in years, and the director instinctively knows how use him as iconically as possible. Harrelson’s been on a roll lately, and revels in his psycho role; his scene with Gabourey Sidibe is a classic. Then there's the always welcome Zelikjo Ivanek. We’re even blessed with the presences of Harry Dean Stanton and Tom Waits (whose coda is a highly amusing inversion of the Hannibal Lector norm).


Hopefully McDonagh’s next movie it won’t be four years away (the gap between In Bruges and this). In the meantime we have his brother’s Calvary to look forward to. I don’t think I could decide which of them has the edge as writer/director. It would be a bit like asking who’s your favourite Coen brother.

*****


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

We’re not owners here, Karen. We’re just passing through.

Out of Africa (1985)
I did not warm to Out of Africa on my initial viewing, which would probably have been a few years after its theatrical release. It was exactly as the publicity warned, said my cynical side; a shallow-yet-bloated, awards-baiting epic romance. This was little more than a well-dressed period chick flick, the allure of which was easily explained by its lovingly photographed exotic vistas and Robert Redford rehearsing a soothing Timotei advert on Meryl Streep’s distressed locks. That it took Best Picture only seemed like confirmation of it as all-surface and no substance. So, on revisiting the film, I was curious to see if my tastes had “matured” or if it deserved that dismissal. 

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

If you could just tell me what those eyes have seen.

Alita: Battle Angel (2019)
(SPOILERS) Robert Rodriguez’ film of James Cameron’s at-one-stage-planned film of Yukito Kishiro’s manga Gunnm on the one hand doesn’t feel overly like a Rodriguez film, in that it’s quite polished, so certainly not of the sort he’s been making of late – definitely a plus – but on the other, it doesn’t feel particularly like a Jimbo flick either. What it does well, it mostly does very well – the action, despite being as thoroughly steeped in CGI as Avatar – but many of its other elements, from plotting to character to romance, are patchy or generic at best. Despite that, there’s something likeable about the whole ludicrously expensive enterprise that is Alita: Battle Angel, a willingness to be its own kind of distinctive misfit misfire.

Mountains are old, but they're still green.

Roma (2018)
(SPOILERS) Roma is a critics' darling and a shoe-in for Best Foreign Film Oscar, with the potential to take the big prize to boot, but it left me profoundly indifferent, its elusive majesty remaining determinedly out of reach. Perhaps that's down to generally spurning autobiographical nostalgia fests – complete with 65mm widescreen black and white, so it's quite clear to viewers that the director’s childhood reverie equates to the classics of old – or maybe the elliptical characterisation just didn't grab me, but Alfonso Cuarón's latest amounts to little more than a sliver of substance beneath all that style.

Life is like a box of timelines. You feel me?

Russian Doll Season One
(SPOILERS) It feels like loading the dice to proclaim something necessarily better because it’s female-driven, but that’s the tack The Hollywood Reporter took with its effusive review of Russian Doll, suggesting “although Nadia goes on a similar journey of self-discovery to Bill Murray’s hackneyed reporter in Groundhog Day, the fact that the show was created, written by and stars women means that it offers up a different, less exploitative and far more thoughtful angle” (than the predominately male-centric entries in the sub-genre). Which rather sounds like Rosie Knight changing the facts to fit her argument. And ironic, given star Natasha Lyonne has gone out of her way to stress the show’s inclusive message. Russian Dollis good, but the suggestion that “unlike its predecessors (it) provides a thoughtfulness, authenticity and honesty which makes it inevitable end (sic) all the more powerful” is cobblers.

We’re looking for a bug no one’s seen before. Some kind of smart bug.

Starship Troopers (1997)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven’s sci-fi trio of Robocop, Total Recall and Starship Troopers are frequently claimed to be unrivalled in their genre, but it’s really only the first of them that entirely attains that rarefied level. Discussion and praise of Starship Troopers is generally prefaced by noting that great swathes of people – including critics and cast members – were too stupid to realise it was a satire. This is a bit of a Fight Club one, certainly for anyone from the UK (Verhoeven commented “The English got it though. I remember coming out of Heathrow and seeing the posters, which were great. They were just stupid lines about war from the movie. I thought, ‘Finally someone knows how to promote this.’”) who needed no kind of steer to recognise what the director was doing. And what he does, he does splendidly, even if, at times, I’m not sure he entirely sustains a 129-minute movie, since, while both camp and OTT, Starship Troopers is simultaneously required t…

Even after a stake was driven through its heart, there’s still interest.

Prediction 2019 Oscars
Shockingly, as in I’m usually much further behind, I’ve missed out on only one of this year’s Best Picture nominees– Vice isn’t yet my vice, it seems – in what is being suggested, with some justification, as a difficult year to call. That might make for must-see appeal, if anyone actually cared about the movies jostling for pole position. If it were between Black Panther and Bohemian Rhapsody (if they were even sufficiently up to snuff to deserve a nod in the first place), there might be a strange fascination, but Joe Public don’t care about Roma, underlined by it being on Netflix and stillconspicuously avoided by subscribers (if it were otherwise, they’d be crowing about viewing figures; it’s no Bird Box, that’s for sure).

You use a scalpel. I prefer a hammer.

Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018)
(SPOILERS) The latest instalment of the impossibly consistent in quality Mission: Impossible franchise has been hailed as the best yet, and with but a single dud among the sextet that’s a considerable accolade. I’m not sure it's entirely deserved – there’s a particular repeated thematic blunder designed to add some weight in a "hero's validation" sense that not only falls flat, but also actively detracts from the whole – but as a piece of action filmmaking, returning director Christopher McQuarrie has done it again. Mission: Impossible – Fallout is an incredible accomplishment, the best of its ilk this side of Mad Max: Fury Road.