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…

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…

If a rat were to walk in here right now as I'm talking, would you treat it to a saucer of your delicious milk?

Inglourious Basterds (2009)
(SPOILERS) His staunchest fans would doubtless claim Tarantino has never taken a wrong step, but for me, his post-Pulp Fiction output had been either not quite as satisfying (Jackie Brown), empty spectacle (the Kill Bills) or wretched (Death Proof). It wasn’t until Inglourious Basterds that he recovered his mojo, revelling in an alternate World War II where Adolf didn’t just lose but also got machine gunned to death in a movie theatre showing a warmly received Goebbels-produced propaganda film. It may not be his masterpiece – as Aldo Raines refers to the swastika engraved on “Jew hunter” Hans Landa’s forehead, and as Tarantino actually saw the potential of his script – but it’s brimming with ideas and energy.

Check it out. I wonder if BJ brought the Bear with him.

Death Proof (2007)
(SPOILERS) In a way, I’m slightly surprised Tarantino didn’t take the opportunity to disown Death Proof, to claim that, as part of Grindhouse, it was no more one of his ten-official-films-and-out than his Four Rooms segment. But that would be to spurn the exploitation genre affectation that has informed everything he’s put his name to since Kill Bill, to a greater or less extent, and also require him to admit that he was wrong, and you won’t find him doing that for anything bar My Best Friend’s Birthday.

Hey, everybody. The bellboy's here.

Four Rooms (1995)
(SPOILERS) I had an idea that I’d only seen part of Four Rooms previously, and having now definitively watched the entire thing, I can see where that notion sprang from. It’s a picture that actively encourages you to think it never existed. Much of it isn’t even actively terrible – although, at the same time, it couldn’t be labelled remotely good– but it’s so utterly lethargic, so lacking in the energy, enthusiasm and inventiveness that characterises these filmmakers at their best – and yes, I’m including Rodriguez, although it’s a very limited corner for him – that it’s very easy to banish the entire misbegotten enterprise from your mind.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994)
(SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump. And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

That woman, deserves her revenge and… we deserve to die. But then again, so does she.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2  (2004)
(SPOILERS) I’m not sure I can really conclude whether one Kill Bill is better than the other, since I’m essentially with Quentin in his assertion that they’re one film, just cut into two for the purposes of a selling point. I do think Kill Bill: Vol. 2 has the movie’s one actually interesting character, though, and I’m not talking David Carradine’s title role.

The adversary oft comes in the shape of a he-goat.

The Witch (2015)
(SPOILERS) I’m not the biggest of horror buffs, so Stephen King commenting that The Witchscared the hell out of me” might have given me pause for what was in store. Fortunately, he’s the same author extraordinaire who referred to Crimson Peak as “just fucking terrifying” (it isn’t). That, and that general reactions to Robert Eggers’ film have fluctuated across the scale, from the King-type response on one end of the spectrum to accounts of unrelieved boredom on the other. The latter response may also contextualise the former, depending on just what King is referring to, because what’s scary about The Witch isn’t, for the most part, scary in the classically understood horror sense. It’s scary in the way The Wicker Man is scary, existentially gnawing away at one through judicious martialling of atmosphere, setting and theme.


Indeed, this is far more impressive a work than Ben Wheatley’s Kill List, which had hitherto been compared to The Wicker Man, succeeding admirably …