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

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

You know what I sometimes wish? I sometimes wish I were ordinary like you. Ordinary and dead like all the others.

Séance on a Wet Afternoon (1964) (SPOILERS) Bryan Forbes’ adaptation of Mark McShane’s 1961’s novel has been much acclaimed. It boasts a distinctive storyline and effective performances from its leads, accompanied by effective black-and-white cinematography from Gerry Turpin and a suitably atmospheric score from John Barry. I’m not sure Forbes makes the most of the material, however, as he underlines Séance on a Wet Afternoon ’s inherently theatrical qualities at the expense of its filmic potential.

A ship is the finest nursery in the world.

A High Wind in Jamaica (1965) (SPOILERS) An odd one, this, as if Disney were remaking The Swiss Family Robinson for adults. One might perhaps have imagined the Mouse House producing it during their “Dark Disney” phase. But even then, toned down. After all, kids kidnapped by pirates sounds like an evergreen premise for boy’s own adventuring (more girl’s own here). The reality of Alexander Mackendrick’s film is decidedly antithetical to that; there’s a lingering feeling, despite A High Wind in Jamaica ’s pirates largely observing their distance, that things could turn rather nasty (and indeed, if Richard Hughes’ 1929 novel  had been followed to the letter, they would have more explicitly). 

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

Duffy. That old tangerine hipster.

Duffy (1968) (SPOILERS) It’s appropriate that James Coburn’s title character is repeatedly referred to as an old hipster in Robert Parrish’s movie, as that seemed to be precisely the niche Coburn was carving out for himself in the mid to late 60s, no sooner had Our Man Flint made him a star. He could be found partaking in jaundiced commentary on sexual liberation in Candy, falling headlong into counter culture in The President’s Analyst , and leading it in Duffy . He might have been two decades older than its primary adherents, but he was, to repeat an oft-used phrase here, very groovy. If only Duffy were too.

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

I tell you, it saw me! The hanged man’s asphyx saw me!

The Asphyx (1972) (SPOILERS) There was such a welter of British horror from the mid 60s to mid 70s, even leaving aside the Hammers and Amicuses, that it’s easy to lose track of them in the shuffle. This one, the sole directorial effort of Peter Newbrook (a cameraman for David Lean, then a cinematographer), has a strong premise and a decent cast, but it stumbles somewhat when it comes to taking that premise any place interesting. On the plus side, it largely eschews the grue. On the minus, directing clearly wasn’t Newbrook’s forte, and even aided by industry stalwart cinematographer Freddie Young (also a go-to for Lean), The Aspyhx is stylistically rather flat.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

Just wait. They’ll start listing side effects like the credits at the end of a movie.

Contagion  (2011) (SPOILERS) The plandemic saw Contagion ’s stock soar, which isn’t something that happens too often to a Steven Soderbergh movie. His ostensibly liberal outlook has hitherto found him on the side of the little people (class action suits) and interrogating the drugs trade while scrupulously avoiding institutional connivance (unless it’s Mexican institutional connivance). More recently, The Laundromat ’s Panama Papers puff piece fell fall flat on its face in attempting broad, knowing satire (in some respects, this is curious, as The Informant! is one of Soderbergh’s better-judged films, perhaps because it makes no bones about its maker’s indifference towards its characters). There’s no dilution involved with Contagion , however. It amounts to a bare-faced propaganda piece, serving to emphasise that the indie-minded director is Hollywood establishment through and through. This is a picture that can comfortably sit alongside any given Tinseltown handwringing over the Wa