Skip to main content

I think we’re the only ones who still endure.


Byzantium
(2012)

(SPOILERS) This is the first new Neil Jordan movie I've caught in quite a while. (Oh wait, I saw The Brave One…) He readily admits that Byzantium distills a number of ideas and themes familiar to his work. That it does so without feeling like a backwards glancing, late career retread suggests there’s a lot of life in the old dog yet. It might be Jordan’s best film since his '80s heyday.


There’s the storyteller architecture that is underpins The Company of Wolves. The ranging back and forth through personal history comes from his other blood-sucking tale, Interview with a Vampire. And then there’s the milieu (a gloomy, rainy seaside town), a reminder of Mona Lisa, which squarely sets a tone redolent of his contemporary pictures rather than horror/fantasy tinged projects.


The director is working from a script by Moira Buffini, based on her play, but it all feels thoroughly Jordan. He’s clearly conscious of the overstuffed vampire genre of recent years and, while there’s no danger of Twilightness dawning over it, certain aspects recall the acclaimed Let the Right One In. Much as I liked that film, I found Byzantium more affecting. Perhaps because the characters are lent such distinctive voices.


Jordan has more than successfully transposed the vampire tale to a real world setting, complete with an intriguingly different mythology. Staying are the immortality (of course), the drinking of blood (of course), the loss of the soul (not addressed in any meaningful way, although visualised with flair), the requirement to invite a creature of the night into one’s abode (slightly more surprising) and the need for decapitations (well you need a bit of bloody excess to remind you it’s a horror movie, don’t you?) But gone are the fangs, allergy to daylight, garlic, crucifixes, siring of additions to the undead brood. The vampire’s tool of choice is now a retractable nail; neat and precise.


More particularly, in contrast to the preponderance of the genre, the focus is on two female characters; the 16-year-old Eleanor (Saoirse Ronan) and her mother Clara (Gemma's Arterton). Posing as sisters, they live a life on the move, pursued by at-first mysterious aggressors (Eleanor has remained oblivious to their intentions) and trapped in a dead-end dependency cycle for 200 years. Clara maintains the career path she was cruelly introduced to during the Napoleonic Wars, living by prostitution or, at best, lap dancing. She provides for Eleanor, but their lives are a claustrophobic trap. Clara was forced to become street smart very early on (and reminds us not a little of Cathy Tyson in Mona Lisa), while Eleanor, whom she protected during her upbringing, is enabled to live the life of mind; artistic and creative, she resents Clara’s carnal profession. The terrors of patriarchy are central to Buffini’s story. It is a man (Johnny Lee Miller’s captain) who ruins the lives of both protagonists, and it is also men (except for Sam Riley’s more progressive – as Riley wryly puts it – vamp) who would prevent them from accessing the elixir.


The precise nature of the shrine that offers this immortality is not dwelt upon, but isn’t it more interesting that way? It has clearly been around for millennia (Thure Lindhart’s Werner references the movie’s title as a period through which he was living; a particularly nasty weapon he wields is a souvenir from the Crusades). I’m a little cautious about the accessibility of this magical site, since fishermen appear to be knocking about on the shore close by (or perhaps I just missed something). What does seem intentional is the parallel between this brotherhood and masonry; an exclusive club of men with overtly misogynistic tendencies (“I hate these crying women”, says Werner disgustedly, having just ended the life of one). Clara is pursued with a vengeance because she broke their rules by inducting another woman. And she, entirely understandably, has made it her mission “To curb the power of men”. As she ends the life of a pimp on the beach, the imagery conjuring that of a torrid tryst, she comments, “The world will be more beautiful without you” but, unlike her daughter, there is no beauty in her life.


Arterton is outstanding, and you get the sense of a reluctant respect forming for her talents (in other words, the response was entirely superficial initially, not always helped by some of the roles she chose; here there’s the best of both worlds). As Clara, she makes no efforts to instill sympathy in the character. She is who she is through harsh experience, and we respect her even if we don’t necessarily like her. But part of this is down to the perspective; we see her through Eleanor’s eyes, and her failings as a mother and an empathic person are writ large; she is coarse, carnal, manipulative and crude.


It is only when she is allowed to embark on her own diverting story (a crucial part of their family history she never divulged to Eleanor) that we fully understand her. Her scene with Tom Hollander’s teacher is a tour de force, where her earthy pulchritude gives way to a much more lingering grandeur. She returned to Elanor because as an immortal she could not endure alone, but she is too late to save her daughter. If I have a slight criticism, it’s that her cutting Eleanor loose at the end doesn’t play quite right; it seems abrupt, as if Clara no longer has time for her daughter because now she has a man in her life now. It may be what Eleanor wants and needs (and is the natural parting of ways even for these unnatural creatures) but there’s a beat or two missing.


Good as Arterton is, this is Ronan’s film all the way. It is Eleanor’s wistful narration that sends us back into her and Clara's past (aside from that one scene). She does a sterling job of conveying a girl who is both 200 years old and eternally 16. One might complain that she and her mother have not grown over the centuries, but that is the whole point. There has been no room to; they have been stuck in a holding pattern. What we do see is Eleanor’s curiously touching moral philosophy. Her code for hunting her prey. The scenes where she picks and then entreats her victims according to these principles are staged in such a way as to make them almost comforting. She only goes after those whose time has come (usually the elderly) and her acts may not exactly be mercy killings, but they are mutually agreed. One might put this in the category of enchantments; we hear her referred to as an angel as she enters a ward. But her gentleness also derives from a mournful state (“Forgive me for what I must do”). She is unable to live in the moment, something her mother always makes a show of (although Clara is constantly living in the future). The past weighs on her; “I remember everything. It’s a burden”, and in her state she cannot progress. As she tells Frank (Caleb Landry Jones), “Everything outside of time is cold”.


Frank might be a little too obvious a character in conception; while his sickly nature is vital to the mother and daughter finally moving on, centring it on blood feels on-the-nose. It allows Jordan to stage some wonderfully evocative moments (time slows down for Eleanor as Frank bleeds, and she savours his crimson handkerchief, wearing the red hood we are familiar with from The Company of Wolves; but here she is the predator). Landry Jones can’t equal Ronan in terms of screen presence either, and his mumbling delivery forced me to engage the subtitles on more than one occasion. If Riley makes an effective counterweight to Arterton in their few scenes together. Landry Jones is unable to do the same over the course of many more.


It’s a nice touch that no one will believe Eleanor’s story; not the boy who she most wants to (not at first, anyway) and not Morag the teacher (Maria Doyle Kennedy) who is otherwise sympathetic. She has a fine scene with Morag where she sadly informs her that the only way to prove her story is over time; Eleanor will visit her in 20 years to do just that (as it turns out, that’s not on the cards). But you wouldn’t believe Eleanor. This is a world where vampires are part of the lore; Jordan makes a point of showing her watching a Hammer Horror (in which a woman is about to be staked). Hollander’s Kevin knows there is something different about her but he is unable to make the leap to believing until circumstances force his neck (“It’s as if Edgar Allan Poe and Mary Shelley had got together and had a very strange little child”); this inner recognition is why he is so dismissive of Frank’s blatantly invented ghost story but unnerved by Elanor’s freeform reminiscence.


And the tale she has to tell unfolds at a measured but compelling pace. It's a particular pleasure that the script doesn't succumb to the rush to provide all the answers at once; they come in their own good time. At one point Jordan even adopts a flashback within flashback, confident that we will not be put off or confused. The imagery of the blood red waterfall is a little too much (I was surprised it wasn’t added in post; it seems they used food dyes), but everything else about the transformation process is striking (are the flocking creatures bats?)  The idea of confronting one’s own self is a powerful one (just ask Luke Skywalker), and Jordan has already skilfully introduced us to this idea when Eleanor first realises she is back in a familiar place; she sees herself before she became a vampire trailing obediently along the beach, and at one point her earlier self looks round seemingly aware of her other’s presence (maybe at some point vampire Eleanor will be called back to that shrine, to initially inflict death on her human form – or is that a little circular and neat?)


Of which, the conclusion is perhaps a little too symmetrical; the bumps of generational strife are ironed out such that both Eleanor and Clara have an opportunity to move on. Jordan might also have reconsidered the decision to allow two entirely different references to the title (the name of the hotel occupied by a typecast Daniel Mays being the other). Nevertheless, he has imbured Byzantium with a melancholy and lyricism that lingers in the mind; hopefully this signals a career resurgence for its director.

****

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi