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.


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.

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…

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.

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

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

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

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.

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.