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.

**** 

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

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.