Skip to main content

Look into my eyes. Look me in the eyes. What do you see?


The Hunt
(2012)

Mads Mikklesen gives an outstanding performance in Thomas Vinterberg’s latest, a piece stylistically so low key that it provokes all the stronger outrage in the viewer.

A divorced teacher and parent (Mikkelsen), lonely and now working at a nursery school after the local secondary closed, finds his life torn apart when a child accuses him of sexual misconduct. The child is also the daughter of his best friend (Thomas Bo Larson), and the soon the entire community has turned on him.

This is an extraordinarily powerful film, one where it is impossible not to become ever more incensed at the treatment of Mikkelsen’s character as events go from bad to worse. Vinterberg establishes from the start that the accusation is entirely false, ensuring the hows and whys of its occurrence are abundantly clear.

Vinterberg is particularly strong at highlighting what he considers to be the Catch-22 absurdity of the scenario; if the child later recants her accusation it must be on account of fear, not because it was actually a lie in the first place. And, as the only man in a teaching environment where only women are deemed acceptable (in the general mindset), he is virtually walking around with a target on his head.

The powerless position that Mikkelesen is placed in is perhaps the film’s strongest suit, but some of the contributing elements are overplayed. The head teacher is unable to deal with the situation with any degree of balance and goes out of her way to sentence the accused, disregarding all appropriate procedures. The social services interviewer prompts his witness in a highly unprofessional manner. All concerned repeat the mantra “Children don’t lie”, making them the most unlikely and oblivious parents and teachers. And the point at which we are told all the children have levelled accusations at Mikkelsen stretches realism to the point where subtext takes over. This over-egging slightly undermines the serious intent.

In addition, given his all-round vilification, some scenes (Mikkelsen’s altercation in the local supermarket) happen at a much later stage than one would expect. While plot and character points mentioned all serve to reinforce the wrongness of the situation, one can’t help but think that the result would have been even more chilling if his treatment had been more “by the book” and he was still condemned and ostracised.

As the celebrity child abuse scandal in the UK indicates, investigation is enough to confirm guilt in the minds of most people.  Outside of the courtroom, it is the presumption of guilt that reins. Mikkelsen’s character will endure stigma for the rest of his life, no matter what the legal verdict is in his case. So there’s a sense that Vinterberg and co-writer Tobias Lindholm (Borgen) have unnecessarily stacked the deck, amping up the the ignorance and stupidity of those who exert power (so to ignite a stronger viewer response). It’s also evident that they were much clearer with their premise than where they wanted to take it; in the second half of the film, with the arrival of Mikkelsen’s son (a strong performance from Lasse Fogelstrøm), shifts the focus and eases up on the torment.

Nevertheless, there’s a great deal of power in the depiction of the small town lynch mob mentality, always ready to find someone to hate with “justification”; an outlet for the all the ills and anger they nurse. While the subject is highly topical, this key theme suggests an intentional parallel to the likes of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible (which presented the witches of Salem trials as an allegory for McCarthyite witch-hunts); the snowballing of a comment made out of rejection/anger increases to community-shattering proportions, making villains of friends at the turn of a dime.

The inability of Mikkelsen's character to respond to accusations to his best advantage seems entirely plausible, but the ambiguous ending suggests a deeper weakness on his part (his willingness to remain with a group where trust can never be rekindled). From that perspective, the final suggestion of threat is not all together necessary (the point has already been made). Then, perhaps the subdued tone belies an intent on the part of the director to make his point as boldly as possible. After all, the title of the film, and the parallelling of Mikklesen with the deer that are his prey, isn’t the subtlest. With a touch of restraint on Vinterberg’s part, The Hunt might have been a masterpiece, rather than merely a highly proficient one that masterfully pushes its audience’s buttons.

**** 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018)
(SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

This is one act in a vast cosmic drama. That’s all.

Audrey Rose (1977)
(SPOILERS) Robert Wise was no stranger to high-minded horror fare when he came to Audrey Rose. He was no stranger to adding a distinctly classy flavour to any genre he tackled, in fact, particularly in the tricky terrain of the musical (West Side Story, The Sound of Music) and science fiction (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain). He hadn’t had much luck since the latter, however, with neither Two People nor The Hindenburg garnering good notices or box office. In addition to which, Audrey Rose saw him returning to a genre that had been fundamentally impacted by The Exorcist four years before. One might have expected the realist principals he observed with The Andromeda Strain to be applied to this tale of reincarnation, and to an extent they are, certainly in terms of the performances of the adults, but Wise can never quite get past a hacky screenplay that wants to impart all the educational content of a serious study of continued existence in tandem w…