Skip to main content

We don't need to be friends. We're family.


Stoker
(2013)

(SPOILERS) I didn’t much care for Oldboy. I should qualify that. I thought it had an arresting premise, and Chan wook-Park worked wonders during the early stages. But, once his protagonist had escaped his prison (and that incredible fight scene), the structure gradually fell apart for me. It careened into a hysterical (not as in funny) and overwrought conclusion, both in terms of story and the director’s OTT staging. I’m sure many would argue for its brilliance for that very reason, but I felt that I’d been promised something intricate and was then served a rather daft and cod-operatic denouement. I know it’s heresy to say anything negative about Oldboy, but there you are. Stoker’s the first of his films I’ve seen since then, and it continues to eke out territory of dark secrets and fucked up families. It has also a fairly standard plot, one you could imagine adapted by another director to middling results. So this means that Park is the star of the show; it’s his densely textured treatment of the material that makes it stand out. I’ve seen comparisons made to Hitchcock’s Shadow of a Doubt, but the most obvious parallel to the suspense master is that Park takes a solid but unremarkable script and works an at times breath-taking magic on it.


Stoker was penned by Wentworth Miller, star of the sublimely dumb Prison Break. He has cited Shadow of a Doubt as an inspiration for the screenplay (along with Bram Stoker’s Dracula, hence the title/surname of the main characters), down to both pieces featuring a character named Uncle Charlie. There isn’t much depth to his story, or to the characters. Part psychological horror and part domestic drama, we’re never encouraged to quite see this as a readily identifiable world. Much of that may be the hazy, heightened, dreamlike mood with which the director suffuses Miller’s. But it’s also down to the gothic theatricality of the source material.


Mia Wasikowska plays India Stoker, a gothically self-involved girl whose father Richard (Dermot Mulroney) dies in a car accident on her 18th birthday. Her relationship with her highly-strung mother Evelyn (Nicole Kidman) is difficult, and the arrival of Richard’s previously unknown brother Charlie (Matthew Goode) serves to make matters more fractious. Charlie shows disturbing attentiveness towards India, who rejects his overtures of friendship. In quick succession the housekeeper and a relative go missing, both of whom knew something of Charlie’s history. Then India discovers the housekeeper’s body in the freezer.


And so parts of this play out like a standard thriller, if a fairly twisted one in terms of untoward familial relations (no surprise, coming from the director of Oldboy). The scene where Charlie confronts Aunt Gwendolyn (Jacki Weaver) could come straight out any slasher movie, complete with a rundown motel as backdrop (the grime she encounters in her room is almost visceral, so used is she to a more comfortable lifestyle). When India visits the basement, it’s a dark, foreboding environment liable to contain a bogeyman. The school bullying she endures is the only plot thread to break through the claustrophobia of the family home, but even that is heavy with the threat of violence and violation.


When Charlie appears in the woods, as if by magic, to kill the boy attempting to rape India, Park allows it play out in a fairly methodical fashion. Bad things always happen in woods. Even the timely arrival of Charlie is the stuff of Hollywood clichés, if lent an unsettling symbiotic quality by the recognition between the two. It’s only afterwards that the scene, replaying through India’s mind as she showers off the mud and blood, takes on an extraordinary quality. What begins with a girl reliving a brutal attack becomes one of autoerotic ecstasy as she admits her arousal at Charlie’s murderous impulses.


We follow India’s viewpoint throughout, so we are encouraged to identify with her withdrawn yet distinctive gaze. One gets the impression that Miller is a keen follower of Dexter, since the childhood flashbacks strongly echo that series ; India’s father perceives her impulses and trains her accordingly. Of course here there is the dual purpose of making her a hunter, to prepare for any eventuality involving her uncle.


So much of the film is the stuff of familiar plot mechanics and clichés that it really shouldn’t work as well as it does. Charlie as a murderous child isn’t exactly knew, and the sudden revelation of where Charlie was this entire time works entirely because of the flourish Park lends it. And his release on India’s 18th birthday recalls the time-coded banality of Michael Myers, playing up the horror tropes. When India asks, “I’m curious about what happened to Jonathan” we segue into a full account; this is Miller opting for the full Monty rather than subtle hints and unravelling. Sot too, certain developments don’t invite close scrutiny (he has remained in a mental hospital all this time but is remarkably capable, be it in the kitchen or sexcapades with Evelyn).


Park perhaps overuses the reflective flashbacks but tonally it is enriching. Stoker is a feast of imagery, pulling us into India’s thought processes; painting a vase in art class, she depicts the pattern inside, rather than the still life itself. Having stabbed a school bully with a pencil, India later sharpens it in a peel of crimson shards. The piano duet with Charlie is stunningly depicted, as India reaches a euphoric state (they play a piece by Phillip Glass, who was originally set to provide the whole soundtrack). Like her uncle, we have learnt that India doesn’t like to be touched, making the moment even more powerful (there may be a suggestion that she is on the autistic spectrum, but this is really secondary to her primary motivation of self-actualisation). Combing Evelyn’s hair, the camera trains down and dissolves seamlessly into a field of tall grass as India recalls a hunting expedition with he father. Then there’s the incredibly unsubtle symbolism of a spider crawling up her thigh and Charlie unfurling his belt as if in prelude to a sexual encounter (Park’s film persistently teeters on the brink of blackly comic absurdity).


At times Park brings the attentiveness to the microcosm we expect from Nicolas Roeg, but combined with the macabre dissonance of David Lynch. He’s unable to conjure the resonance of either, because the subject matter is so run-of-the-mill, but one cannot deny he milks the screenplay for every nuance and then some.  Yet, despite the more Grand Guignol aspects, he also tempers himself in a manner absent from Oldboy; this is about repressed emotions finding release, and Park restricting himself on that level serves the piece. The pacing and editing are astonishingly confident, flowing and ebbing or torrenting as appropriate. The sound work is similarly acute, with a fine score from Clint Mansell.


Park has cast his film well, but it’s Wasikowska who really stands out. Hers is a captivating performance, remote and delicate yet confident and intense. Her large dark eyes are a well of unknowable depths. Yet we identify with her, even as she unfurls herself as a fully-fledged psychopath in the final scene (featuring Ralph Brown, Danny from Withnail & I). This is the sort of role Winona Ryder would have given her eye teeth for back in day, and there’s a trace of Lydia from Beetlejuice in India’s brooding insightfulness. But I can’t imagine Ryder reaching the heights or depths Wasikowska explores here. Goode is good, although he announces himself as suspicious from his first scene; it serves to underline the tensions of a film that manages both incredible subtlety and a crashing lack of it. As for Kidman, Evelyn’s brittle insecurity (not as young as she was, jealous of her daughter and showing zero reserve in making her intentions towards Charlie known) seems like the perfect fit. Except that there’s never a trace of sympathy for her; perhaps this lop-sidedness is an intentional consequence of India’s point of view.


Stoker is no masterpiece. Its gothic potboiler roots are far too manifest. But Park has invested it with such style and warped beauty that it nearly escapes its limitations. And for Wasikowska, hitherto a very pretty but relatively unchallenged performer, this is an incredible calling card.

**** 

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…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

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…

Stupid adult hands!

Shazam! (2019)
(SPOILERS) Shazam! is exactly the kind of movie I hoped it would be, funny, scary (for kids, at least), smart and delightfully dumb… until the final act. What takes place there isn’t a complete bummer, but right now, it does pretty much kill any interest I have in a sequel.

I have discovered the great ray that first brought life into the world.

Frankenstein (1931)
(SPOILERS) To what extent do Universal’s horror classics deserved to be labelled classics? They’re from the classical Hollywood period, certainly, but they aren’t unassailable titans that can’t be bettered – well unless you were Alex Kurtzman and Chris Morgan trying to fashion a Dark Universe with zero ingenuity. And except maybe for the sequel to the second feature in their lexicon. Frankenstein is revered for several classic scenes, boasts two mesmerising performances, and looks terrific thanks to Arthur Edeson’s cinematography, but there’s also sizeable streak of stodginess within its seventy minutes.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.

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…