Skip to main content

There are no serial killers in the Soviet state. It is a decadent western phenomenon.

Citizen X
(1995)

(SPOILERS) Twenty years ago, HBO made an extremely decent TV movie (surprising, I know, HBO making extremely decent TV) about the Andrei Chikatilo serial killer case. Low key, fairly unpolished, but superbly scripted and acted, Citizen X knocks the recent Child 44 into a cocked ushanka.


Chris Gerolmo’s Hollywood career hasn’t been too prolific, the screenplay for Mississippi Burning aside. This was his first directorial effort, and it’s a bit rough around the edges (yet conversely featuring some nice, simple touches), but the quality of his script is unquestionable. Based on Robert Cullen’s The Killer Department, Citizen X documents the decade-long quest to capture the first (recognised) Soviet serial killer, a mission continually hampered by bureaucracy and propaganda.


Victor Burakov (Stephen Rea) a forensic specialist tasked with examining the first eight bodies (the victims would end up numbering 52) found buried and decaying on a collective farm in 1982, is appointed by Colonel Fetisov (Donald Sutherland) to lead the case, his first taste of official detective work. On first showing Fetisov is a bit of a bastard, taking cheap shots at Burakov’s presentation (“Next time, a little less diligence and a little more hygiene”) in front of the presiding committee headed by Bondarchuk (Joss Ackland, on typically loathsome form). But it soon becomes apparent that the conflict between Burakov and Fetisov is one of approach rather than objective. Fetisov has years of experience to guide him, knowing what does and doesn’t work under the Soviet system.


Burakov, earnest and blunt, announces to the committee “It is clear that we have a serial killer on our hands, already the most prolific in Russian history”, to which Bondarchuk bluntly asserts “There are no serial killers in the Soviet state. It is a decadent western phenomenon”. Burakov’s intuitions are fundamentally sound (he realises the killer is using the train system, and puts a watch on stations), but poo-pooed by his superiors, such that they bring in investigator Gorbunov (John Wood) who wants to concentrate his search on homosexuals (seized upon enthusiastically by Bondarchuk, in a plot twist that is pointed but a little too convenient).


Burakov learns the hard way about the need to finesse a situation to get what one wants (or to say what needs to be heard and then do what you want to do anyway). His list of what is needed to progress the investigation (more men, computers, publicity and contact with the FBI) falls on deaf ears, since it admits inadequacy and, worse still, announces it. At one point the spectre of the Secret Police taking him away is raised, as the vituperative Bondarchuk asserts “Wouldn’t you say that you yourself would make a good suspect?” (there are some fine little complementary scenes where Imelda Staunton, as Burakov’s devoted wife, sooths her husband’s troubled brow).


It reaches the point where, after five years on the case, the sensitive and diligent Burakov has a breakdown (“Is the man to whom we have entrusted the safety of our children crying?”) and it’s the point where Fetisov comes out from behind his deference and stands by his man. Fetisov later apologises, on learning how the FBI rotates its staff of serial killer cases every 18 months due to the damage prolonged exposure can do to the psyche.


The relationship between Burakov and Fetisov is a delight of growing respect, playfulness and ribbing. The witty Fetisov’s sense of humour slowly rubs off on Burakov, while Fetisov discovers that after “spending enough time with a lion, the idea of roaring seems more and more reasonable”. Gerolmo’s dialogue is a constant pleasure, and he has assembled a perfect cast, rather than starry faces, to deliver it. Fetisov advises that “The strength of bureaucracy is measured by its ability to resist giving anyone special treatment”. In response to an early accusation from Burakov regarding his willingness to please his superiors, he casually comments “You’re right. I should spend more time trying to alienate them. Perhaps you could teach me”.


Sutherland is quite marvellous in the role of Fetisov. Always an underrated actor, he’s an easy go-to as a villain (The Hunger Games) but at his best when allowed to give his natural quirkiness and sense of humour free rein. Instructing a squad of guards to make their “Stop and Search” policy abundantly clear, as a means to entrap the killer, he asks them if they think they can perform this role without subtlety, discretion or tact, to which they respond as one “Yes, Comrade General!”.


Fetisov does manage to enable one of Burakov’s requests, that of bringing in a psychiatrist to consult on the case. The Exorcist-like, the specialist in question turns out to be Max von Sydow’s Dr Bukhanovsky, prone to such insights concerning the duo as “May I say, together you make a wonderful person”. Indeed, Rea and Sutherland exchange the same line of dialogue when they both blow gaskets at different points (“You handled that quite deftly”). The chemistry between them is so strong that it’s an embarrassment of riches when von Sydow also enters the scene (“Being a hero is enormously taxing. I’ve only been doing it seven or eight minutes and already I feel enormously enervated”). His scene as interrogator is a master class in straightforwardness as, after seven days of Gorbunov grilling the suspect to no response, Bukhanovsky simply reads Chikatilo (Jeffrey DeMunn) the report he has prepared; so profound are the insights that the murderer breaks down and confesses.


DeMunn, most recently seen as a notable regular in The Walking Dead, gives a powerfully contained performance as Chikatilo (except when committing his murderous acts). As a colleague of Burakov comments at one point, “I don’t think he’s savage enough” (Gerolmo is mostly oblique with regard to showing his most extreme behaviour). His reveal as a family man goes against the expected serial killer form (in movies at least; there seem to be quite enough Fred Wests and John Christies in the real world), and it might be said the connection between his day-to-day stresses and outlet of murder is a little too systematic; if he has a bad day on the job (“This is the man who stopped our work today” announces his superior, parading him on the shop floor) or at home (“Pathetic” mutters his wife Tusse Silberg after failed sexual congress), off he trots to the station. But DeMunn makes Chikatilo all the more chilling for being resolutely average, rather than overtly depraved.


Gerolmo’s directorial approach is mostly unadorned, but he adopts different methods to illustrate Chikatilo’s acts; the killing of children is sensitively, rather than gratuitously, portrayed (repeated falling bodies in slow motion). Chikatilo’s cannibalism is limited to one shot, of his bloodied face, but it’s all that’s needed to make the point. This contrasts with the stark frenzy as he repeatedly stabs a woman (one wonders if Fincher saw this before making Zodiac). The pathological details of the killer’s sexual impulses and acts are discussed in matter-of fact-detail, something one might expect a big screen version to skirt around. Then there’s the transgressive manner in which a boy urinating in a field uncovers a corpse, a visual metaphor for the way in which the state has refused to admit to what is going on, allowing the case to drag on at the cost of more casually forgotten lives.


Citizen X benefits from the lack of thriller trappings, not required to turn its narrative into a race against time or amp up the tension of the hunt. The hindrances to Burakov’s investigations are integral to the story, and it’s more than six years after bringing in Chikatilo for initial questioning (“Are you aware that your suspect is a member of the communist party?” lambasts Bondarchuk) that he is finally apprehended. Child 44 is expensive and glossy, with a showy central performance from Tom Hardy that couldn’t be more different to Rea’s contained, pensive empathy, but it completely fails to tell its (sprawling and reframed) story, while also lifting a notable visual from this feature (the crushing of a kopek on rail tracks). Yet, despite sticking determinedly to the very grim details of the case, Citizen X is frequently a very funny piece. Gerolmo understands and navigates expertly the need for such fare to respect the horrors involved while balancing the accessible human element. Citizen X can currently be found on YouTube.



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…

What we sell are hidden truths. Our territory is the mind. Our merchandise is fear.

The Avengers 5.1: The Fear Merchants
The colour era doesn't get off to such a great start with The Fear Merchants, an Avengers episode content to provide unstinting averageness. About the most notable opinion you’re likely to come away with is that Patrick Cargill rocks some magnificent shades.

Just make love to that wall, pervert!

Seinfeld 2.10: The Statue
The Premise
Jerry employs a cleaner, the boyfriend of an author whose book Elaine is editing. He leaves the apartment spotless, but Jerry is convinced he has made off with a statue.

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

There’s still one man out here some place.

Sole Survivor (1970)
(SPOILERS) I’m one for whom Sole Survivor remained a half-remembered, muddled dream of ‘70s television viewing. I see (from this site) the BBC showed it both in 1979 and 1981 but, like many it seems, in my veiled memory it was a black and white picture, probably made in the 1950s and probably turning up on a Saturday afternoon on BBC2. Since no other picture readily fits that bill, and my movie apparition shares the salient plot points, I’ve had to conclude Sole Survivor is indeed the hitherto nameless picture; a TV movie first broadcast by the ABC network in 1970 (a more famous ABC Movie of the Week was Spielberg’s Duel). Survivor may turn out to be no more than a classic of the mind, but it’s nevertheless an effective little piece, one that could quite happily function on the stage and which features several strong performances and a signature last scene that accounts for its haunting reputation.

Directed by TV guy Paul Stanley and written by Guerdon Trueblood (The…

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

It’s all Bertie Wooster’s fault!

Jeeves and Wooster 3.4: Right Ho, Jeeves  (aka Bertie Takes Gussie's Place at Deverill Hall)
A classic set-up of crossed identities as Bertie pretends to be Gussie and Gussie pretends to be Bertie. The only failing is that the actor pretending to be Gussie isn’t a patch on the original actor pretending to be Gussie. Although, the actress pretending to be Madeline is significantly superior than her predecessor(s).

Do not run a job in a job.

Ocean’s 8 (2018)
(SPOILERS) There’s nothing wrong with the gender-swapped property per se, any more than a reboot, remake or standard sequel exploiting an original’s commercial potential (read: milking it dry). As with those more common instances, however, unless it ekes out its own distinctive territory, gives itself a clear reason to be, it’s only ever going to be greeted with an air of cynicism (whatever the current fashion for proclaiming it valid simply because it's gender swapped may suggest to the contrary).  The Ocean's series was pretty cynical to start with, of course – Soderbergh wanted a sure-fire hit, the rest of the collected stars wanted the kudos of working with Soderbergh on a "classy" crowd pleaser, the whole concept of remaking the '60s movie was fairly lazy, and by the third one there was little reason to be other than smug self-satisfaction – so Ocean's 8 can’t be accused of letting any side down. It also gives itself distinctively – stereo…

I take Quaaludes 10-15 times a day for my "back pain", Adderall to stay focused, Xanax to take the edge off, part to mellow me out, cocaine to wake me back up again, and morphine... Well, because it's awesome.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Along with Pain & Gain and The Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street might be viewed as the completion of a loose 2013 trilogy on the subject of success and excess; the American Dream gone awry. It’s the superior picture to its fellows, by turns enthralling, absurd, outrageous and hilarious. This is the fieriest, most deliriously vibrant picture from the director since the millennium turned. Nevertheless, stood in the company of Goodfellas, the Martin Scorsese film from which The Wolf of Wall Street consciously takes many of its cues, it is found wanting.

I was vaguely familiar with the title, not because I knew much about Jordan Belfort but because the script had been in development for such a long time (Ridley Scott was attached at one time). So part of the pleasure of the film is discovering how widely the story diverges from the Wall Street template. “The Wolf of Wall Street” suggests one who towers over the city like a behemoth, rather than a guy …

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…