Skip to main content

Vampires don't do dishes!

What We Do in the Shadows
(2014)

(SPOILERS) The persistent problem of the mockumentary is sustaining its premise. There’s a reason This is Spinal Tap is the unassailable high water mark, because the subgenre lends itself too readily unfocussed improvisation and narrative. How many respected but forgettable Christopher Guest ensemble vehicles are there? A random collection of scenes stuffed together, even if they are mostly funny, can quickly become tiresome or listless. What We Do in the Shadows, a New Zealand fly-on-the-wall about centenarian flat-sharing vampires, is wisely short, snappy and well-versed in the genre it is riffing on, but it comes at a point where the spoof doc has all but run its course. It’s difficult to do anything interesting with the form, and What We Do in the Shadows doesn’t; it’s content to wit-quicked but is only occasionally inspired.


Shadows is the long-gestating (getting on for a decade) brainchild of Jemaine Clement and Taiki Waititi. Post-Flight of the Conchords (in which Waititi made a solitary appearance) the former has etched himself out a reliable career as a supporting player (and voice) in a series of Hollywood pictures. Most identifiably in Men in Black III, but his vocals have been rightly recognised as something to be celebrated, hence cherishably evil Nigel in the Rio pictures.


Clement also starred in Eagle vs Shark, Waititi’s first feature, an oddball romance that was much acclaimed but I found merely so-so. Waititi’s the weak link here performance-wise; he’s not a disgrace or anything (his continued inability to avoid hitting a main artery of his victims, so ruining mealtime, gets several bloody laughs), and no one here has the sheer presence of Clement (Vlad, 862 years old). But nor is Waititi’s dandy Viago (379) as memorable as Jonathan Brugh’s Deacon (183) or Ben Fransham’s Nosferatu-like Petyr (8,000). He’s not even as notable as the humans, Nick (Cori Gonzalez-Macuer, who becomes a vampire and can’t stop blabbing about it; “I’m the main guy in Twilight”)) and Stu (Stu Rutherford, whom the other vampires like much more than Nick once he has been turned, and who eventually becomes a werewolf).


Yes, the werewolves (not swearwolves). They are led by Conchords regular Rhys Darby as Anton. Anton’s an amusingly unlikely werewolf pack leader, since Darby is trotting out his accustomed turn. Aton is wholly anal, and more akin to a line manager than someone apt to tear one limb from limb. The vampires vs werewolves sequences are a rich source of comedy (“We’re just about to walk past some werewolves, so some shit might go down”; “Please don’t lick anything or pee on anything” they are asked on entering the vampire home). The biggest laugh has police blame a poor dog for a werewolf dismemberment spree (“Look at what you did”).


As expected, the vampire gags mostly come down to contrasting the mundanity of everyday existence with the quirks of blood sucking. Deacon never does the washing up, like an unruly student. Petyr leaves a mess on the basement floor (including a spinal column). There is a general reluctance to put down newspaper or towels before feeding, and Vlad “tended to torture when I was in a bad place”.


Vlad was turned at 16, accounting for his appearance (“of course, in those days life was rough for a 16 year old”). Deacon “was a Nazi vampire” (surely a reference toi recent Nazi zombie movies). There’s a delight in self-delusion (“When you are a vampire, you become very sexy”) and the damp squib limits of their extraordinary powers (they can make spaghetti appear like live worms – “we stole that from The Lost Boys” – , but not chips, as it “only works with things that already look like worms”), and Spinal Tap-esque clueless logic (“We’re the bait, but we’re also the trap”). On a night on the town, they have to ask bouncers to invite them into bars. Child vampires are asked “You going to kill some perverts?


The main sequence, The Unholy Masquerade, is a ball attended by vampires, witches and zombies (“Are you predeceased?” Stu is asked). It isn’t as creative as the previous vignettes, although the twist that the Beast (“She prefers ‘Pauline’”) is an ex-girlfriend of Vlad’s is amusing.


Effects are mostly effective, and funny (which is more important). The flying sequences are used to highlight the more uncontrollable aspects of flying harnesses, while the transformations into bats are nippy. Vlad’s half-change into a cat (with his own face) is suitably silly/creepy, but the werewolves are wholly on-a-budget glimpses. Elsewhere, Nick vomiting torrents of blood after eating a solitary chip is more in your Apatow vein of bodily function humour.


The picture is rarely more than thirty seconds from a laugh, but it’s nevertheless unable to escape from the fact that it is structured in piecemeal fashion; it’s always very evident how scenes have been conceived, constructed and edited, so What We Do in the Shadows, despite being consistently chucklesome, ends up wearing its conception on its sleeve in a manner This is Spinal Tap avoids.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.