Skip to main content

You need chaperoning, and I'm the chaperone.

Slow West
(2015)

(SPOILERS) It makes sense that Slow West, a beguiling, oddball and melancholic little western arrives courtesy of one of the guiding lights of The Beta Band and The Aliens, whose songs were beguiling, oddball and melancholic. John Maclean’s feature debut reunites him with Michael Fassbender following several short films together, and it’s the kind of fractured, eccentric vision of the Old West redolent of Jim Jarmusch’s Dead Man.


There are no doubt other filmmakers who will come to mind watching Slow West, including the Coen brothers, Wes Anderson, and the vibrant colour schemes of Jean Pierre-Jeunet. But Maclean doesn’t come over as an imitator; his western is very much its own thing, an off-kilter odyssey in which Kodi Smith-McPhee’s innocent gentry Jay Cavendish is guided across an eclectic landscape by Fassbender’s bounty hunting “brute” Silas Selleck. The object of Jay’s quest is his love Rose Ross (Caren Pistorius), who fled Scotland with her father John (Rory McCann) following a fatal accident involving Jay’s father. Jay’s motives are pure but misguided, while those of everyone else hunting the Rosses (for a $2,000 rewarded) are impure but clearly motivated.


Maclean’s starting point was his observation that all characters in westerns tend to sound American, rather than reflecting the strong immigrant reality. While no one would accuse his film of reflecting any kind of “reality” of the West, it does continually reference the divide between what we imagine and what is “true”. It is ironic that Jay, who has arrived uncorrupted in a violent land (as Silas keeps telling him it is) traverses it almost angelically protected – barring theft – until he happens upon his intended (in coincidental parallel to Fury Road, at one point he stops an arrow with his) … who shoots him, thinking he’s one of the bounty hunters come to get her. And then she doesn’t even realise it is him until he has lain there bleeding out for a spell. As she says to Silas, “His heart was in the wrong place” something both Silas and Jay’s own subconscious attempted to impart (he dreams of Silas and Rose making domestic together, which becomes the final scene).


And their domestic world comes with an instant offspring, the kids Jay leaves parentless when he shoots their Swedish mother; one can’t see Jay as being punished for this, but certainly his downfall comes from lacking the tools to deal with this world (Silas attempts to calm the young woman and even bounty hunter Payne, played with a little less creepy malevolence than usual by Ben Mendelsohn, takes the children with him when Silas and a reluctant Jay leave them behind). When Jay tells three Congolese travellers “Love is universal like death” the two are destined to dovetail in the unkindest of ways for him. Werner (Andrew Roberti), a writer on the injustices to the Native American population, waxes lyrical that “In a short time, this will be a long time ago”, the selective nostalgia and romanticised mythology Maclean is in part indulging, and then steals Jay’s possessions and horse. And yet, ultimately Silas sides with the poetic dream, rather than the harsh reality ("There is more than life to survival. Jay Cavendish taught me that").


Slow West is quirky, rather than uproariously funny; skeletal arms stretch either side of a tree that has flattened its feller, one of Payne’s men tells a shaggy dog story about manufacturing a wanted poster for a colleague, Jay and Silas stretch a washing line between their horses to dry their clothes (leading to the picture’s standout moment of slapstick violence), and Silas – normally the hero of these things – spends the final shootout injured, smoking a cigar. Indeed, it’s Rose, rather than her father, who has all the common-sense about this world, which is why she and Silas end up living together and Jay and John lie dead, Maclean furnishing reminder cuts of all the bodies that have mounted up during this really not so violent movie (at least in tone).


Maclean handles his action (“Kill that house!”) as he handles his landscapes, though; sumptuously, poetically, and vibrantly, making creative use of the length and breadth of the frame, and, as you might expect, the musical choices are immaculate (Jed Kurzel provided the score). Fassbender doesn’t quite look the part in his cowboy hat, but his performance more than makes up for this, and Smit-McPhee may have missed out on Spider-Man but he’s the perfect encapsulation of the innocent naif. The Ho! For the West! volume Jay carries with him might well have been the title if the Coen Brothers had made this, but there’s more feeling here than the brothers usual imbue in their work, the kind of emotional underbelly either of the McDonagh brothers might lend a western if they saw fit to tackle the genre. I’m eager to see whatever Maclean comes up with next.


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.

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.

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.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

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

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