Skip to main content

Put me the fuck down, you goddam psycho. I’ll shit in your hand.

The Voices
(2014)

(SPOILERS) Persepolis director Marjane Satrapi’s first US film is a horror comedy just distinct enough to overcome the familiarity of its serial killing subject matter.  Much of this is down to Satrapi’s playful, vibrant style, but credit is also due to never-a-box-office-star-no matter-how-hard-he-tries Ryan Reynolds. His placid schizophrenic Jerry isn’t a showstopper in and off himself but, in combination with his handful of supporting vocal performances, most notably those of Jerry’s pets, dog Bosco and cat Mr Whiskers, Reynolds infuses The Voices with an offbeat energy that perfectly complements his director’s offbeat tone and visuals.


Screenwriter Michael R Perry’s form is mostly in TV, including series both quirky (Eerie, Indiana) and supernatural (American Gothic, Millennium, The Dead Zone). Not that many of them suggest the facility for jet-black humour and clarity of voice found here. His choice to centre on a schizophrenic (off his meds and) entering dangerously psychotic territory is one commonly plundered in the horror genre. One could reel of dozens of titles that fit the bill, even just since the turn of the millennium, where characters’ internal voices and scenarios are physically manifested (Shutter Island, Black Swan, Bug, and on the more “serious”, as in seriously shitty, end of things A Beautiful Mind). The Voices fits more into the heightened territory of Filth or Donnie Darko, where a wicked streak of humour informs its protagonist’s meltdown.


Jerry is likeable but doofish and doormaish, a bit of a joke to his fellow workers, upbeat and overeager to help and please; in the early scenes he comes across as a caricature of earnest vacuity. His world is primary coloured, although his apartment is hermetic and darkened, inhabited by Scottish cat Mr Whiskers, who harangues him for his failings and foolishness (he’s “so hopelessly pathetic”) and dog Bosco, who encourages him to be behave morally and be a good person. Jerry, who also cuts a mysterious figure, develops feelings for fellow employee Fiona (Gemma Arterton), but a series of events including her standing him up and hitting a deer leads to Jerry accidentally killing her (although it was on his mind anyway). This act precipitates a further descent into a free rein for his darker impulses (as personified by Mr Whiskers) and ignoring his better ones (Bosco).


Bosco: I earned the right to be called a good boy.
Mr Whiskers: You earned the right to be hit by a minivan.

This tug of impulses things isn’t such an original device; historically it was more commonly personified in characters with multiple personality disorder. And benign Bosco isn’t on his own a particularly memorable character. Mr Whiskers, however establishes the flippant, knowing attitude of the picture. A vituperative, bloody-minded and vindictive feline, he is constantly barracking and berating Jerry (“In her eyes, you are a ridiculous peasant” he says of Fiona), while presenting Jerry’s worse impulses as perfectly natural (“The only time I felt alive is when I’m killing”). 


Mainly, though Mr Whiskers is absolutely hilarious, as if Dexter was accompanied by a goading kitty rather than a beneficent parent. Foul-mouthed (“Where the fuck’s my food, fuck-face?” he demands when Jerry comes home after being out all night) and devil’s advo-cat, he incites Jerry then gloats at his failures (“That’s you, Jerry. Can I have an autograph?” he requests after the murder of Fiona is described on the news as the work of a serial killer).


If there’s sly, provocative intent here, it’s voiced in Jerry’s world being an insulated and inviting place when he’s not on his meds. When he is, it becomes a harsh, cold and miserable environment. He’s pets no longer communicate. The head in the fridge really is just a head in the fridge, not Fiona willing to converse with Jerry. The picture has a mirthfully ambivalent approach to prescribed treatments; on them, Jerry leaves in a dead, empty world. Off them, well he may be prone to killing a few people, but isn’t he contented?


There’s also the criticism of his mental healthcare treatment, as signified by his relationship with his psychotherapist Dr Warren. Jackie Weaver marvellously embodies her as a well-meaning but ineffectual figure (notably, she pleads with the police not to kill Jerry, but does nothing on repeated occasions when Jerry admits he’s off his pills). Jerry never gets any answers in his therapy until he kidnaps and threatens her. As Mr Whiskers notes, “Great job she’s doing. You’re the picture of mental health”.


Satrapi’s approach follows in the line of black comedies of a murderous bent that stretches from Kind Hearts and Coronets to Danny De Vito’s ‘80s directorial efforts, to Heathers, Serial Mom and American Psycho. This is a picture suggesting a director (or writer) familiar with both Sam Raimi and trad horror clichés (a talking deer, a woman in a negligee running through a woods at night), and keen to emphasise the more colourful, cartoonish elements (the butterflies Jerry sees, Fiona’s appearances as an angel) while eschewing any overt gore.


Indeed, there’s a running theme of religious imagery, extending from Jerry’s flashbacks to childhood and a mother who talks about angels to Jerry’s own interest (“The fourth angel is Lucifer” he tells Fiona of The Bible’s named angels besides Raphael – presumably Jerry has studied The Book of Tobit – Michael and Gabriel). This culminates in a cheesy end credits scene featuring heavenly void for a song and dance number with a stoner Jesus driving a forklift truck. I don’t think it quite delivers. It isn’t especially clever of witty and feels rather obvious, and a little clumsy given the line treaded before this, but it certainly underlines the picture’s ambivalent morality; Jerry can kill whoever he likes and it doesn’t matter once he gets to “heaven”. Even Mr Whiskers expresses fondness for Bosco in the end.


Reynolds, who has an unfortunately slightly cross-eyed quality that makes him perfect for a psycho, is undeniably a quick wit but has been determinedly resistant to audiences warming to him or finding him charming over the years. He’s good throughout, though obviously really scores as Mr Whiskers. By comparison, next year’s Deadpool looks as if it will be pure adolescent one-liners and cheap shots (so probably quite successful). Arterton is fine, although playing up her Englishness gets a little tiresome. Anna Kendrick is also decent, although her character Lisa (a future fridge resident) has little substance.


The Voices is suitably twisted and flourishes several narrative conceits with distinction, but in the end it might be a little too recognisable and reliable in form to attain the status of cult classic. The best of the genre have a readily identifiable satirical intent (the aforementioned Serial Mom and Heathers), but Satrapi presents the markers (Jerry presents the appearance of normality, and that’s enough for most people) without ever feeling inclined to wrestle the material into something more potent.


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…

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.

Basically, you’re saying marriage is just a way of getting out of an embarrassing pause in conversation?

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
(SPOILERS) There can be a cumulative effect from revisiting a movie where one glaring element does not fit, however well-judged or integrated everything else is; the error is only magnified, and seems even more of a miscalculation. With Groundhog Day, there’s a workaround to the romance not working, which is that the central conceit of reliving your day works like a charm and the love story is ultimately inessential to the picture’s success. In the case of Four Weddings and a Funeral, if the romance doesn’t work… Well, you’ve still got three other weddings, and you’ve got a funeral. But our hero’s entire purpose is to find that perfect match, and what he winds up with is Andie McDowell. One can’t help thinking he’d have been better off with Duck Face (Anna Chancellor).

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.

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…

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

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

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…

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.