Skip to main content

She’s ripping up yard art!

I Don’t Feel at Home in This World Anymore
(2017)

(SPOILERS) An assured debut from actor and frequent Jeremy Saulnier collaborator Macon Blair (great first name, unfortunate connotations deriving from the second), I Don’t Feel at Home in This World Anymore deposits itself in similarly unsophisticated, dark criminal underbellies as Saulnier’s, but Blair adorns his tale with a veneer of pitch-black humour, and where Saulnier operates in an arena of taut linearity, Blair (who also wrote the screenplay), embraces the shaggy dog narrative of a plot content to amble waywardly to its ultimate destination.


The title suggests a level of existential angst the picture doesn’t, in all honesty, really comes to grips with, although I’m not sure it really wants to. It’s an oddball name for an oddball movie – not at all a character piece based around Nordic soul searching – and intimations of pervading ennui are continually shrugged off by the convulsively funny antics and exchanges into which any given scene sidesteps.


Assistant nurse Ruth (Melanie Lynskey), for all her vocalisations that “Everyone is an asshole” and “Pretty soon, I’ll just be carbon, and none of it matters”, is too motivated, to roused to righteous ire, to sink wholeheartedly into nihilistic despair. Her quest for her stolen laptop (and grandmother’s silverware) doesn’t end when it is recovered; she desires a confrontation with the perpetrator, but more than that she is trying to prove something, to reach an unattainable goal, “For people not to be assholes”.


Like anyone who finds them “falling down”, it isn’t just a single incident (the violation of her home) that triggers Ruth, it’s that it’s the final straw on top of all the other conspiring elements in her life. From the first scene, darkly comic unease (and Blair’s twisted tone) is the order of the day, illustrated by an old patient’s uncensored last words (“Keep your gigantic monkey dick… out of my good pussy!”). Naturally, Ruth can’t tell the relatives. Then there’s Blair’s cameo, spoiling the novel Ruth is reading (the Elsewhere Saga), and the arrival of neighbour Tony (Elijah Wood), at whom she hurls dog-doo (“You’ve been shitting in my yard!”). That she misses is a good indication of a movie where very little goes according to anyone’s plan (protagonist and antagonist alike).


Every scene in Ruth’s quest is lit up by vignettes of peculiarity. The detective on the case (Gary Anthony Williams) is dismissive of her demands for demonstrable investigation (“Why don’t you want to help me? Isn’t it your job?”), to the point where he gets upset over her upset. With Tony in tow, an inept but good-hearted, rat’s-tailed hipster equipped with throwing stars and trust in Jesus (queried by Ruth on his praying, he replies “You asked for help, I asked for help. That’s how things get done”), she tracks down the laptop on her own recognisees, and then the silverware, where an altercation with a very old man (Myron Natwick, looking like he’s stepped out of Poltergeist) finds him breaking her finger and Tony clocking him one. There’s a lot of clocking going on in I Don’t Feel at Home in This World Anymore. And, while their journey is fraught with injury and mishap, Ruth and Tony prove surprisingly competent, more through luck than anything resembling aptitude, and often to hilariously gruesome ends.


Ruth: Did you do those tattoos yourself?
Marshall: Yeah, sure.
Ruth: They’re fucking stupid.

Every character here is memorable, from appearance to dubious disposition. Christian (Devon Graye, bearing a passing resemblance to the egg-sucking Nazi in A Fistful of Dynamite) is anything but, so thoroughly reprehensible that he takes shits in peoples’ lavatory cisterns. Accordingly, there’s only entailing mirth when Ruth batters him with the plaster of Paris imprint of his own shoe, and he flees straight into the path of a bus.


The final act finds her forced into a robbery with small-time crazies Marshall (David Yow) and Dez (Jane Levy). Following a very bloody standoff that simultaneously juggles the gross, comical and gripping, she flees into the woods pursued by Marshall, where she resorts to insulting her pursuer before lobbing rocks at him. And comes out on top (helped in some measure by an impromptu reptile). By this point, Blair has built up an anything-might-happen scenario, such that an anguis ex machina seems entirely reasonable.


Ruth: Yeah, yeah. What would Jesus do, right?

Melanie Lynskey has worked consistently over the years, but this might be her brightest movie role since her debut in Peter Jackson’s Heavenly Creatures (obviously, it was Oor Kate who went on to the fame and glory). Ruth’s end-of-her-tether unwillingness to let it lie is marvellously complemented by Tony’s earnest sincerity – Wood is always a good choice for earnestness, and sincerity – and if they’re an unlikely duo, the fact of Tony caring – his essential decency – is ultimately the tonic that enables Ruth to persevere yet awhile longer in this world (Blair plays with an “Is he, or isn’t he?” moment in respect of Tony’s survival, but to go for the negative would have jarred too much with a movie that, in whatever offbeat way, is taking its lead protagonist on an upward path).


Tony also offers a tempering influence on Ruth’s unleashed capacity to push it further and further. At the beginning, she lets it lie when customers drop items on the floor of the supermarket and cut into the queue ahead of her; before long, she’s calling them out on their indolence and cutting in herself. The first sign of a kindred spirit is not that Tony is reading the same book, but that he objects to spoilers (“Don’t tell me what happens, I hate that”; quite right too, that’s why I put warnings on reviews).


Marshall: She’s ripping up yard art!

There also seems to be a suggestion of universal balance at work, bellying Ruth’s sense of futility; she asks “What are we doing here, in the world?”, but Tony professes no such doubts. Indeed, he’s most clear when Ruth goes over the line, ripping up yard art (“It’s not your lawn tiger” and so inviting bad karma. Her penance is becoming an accessory to the bloody final act, that nearly does for Tony. Lynskey measures a character who is fearful but determined, lost but resourceful, just right – we completely buy that she’d insult the man (Chris Rumack) into whose residence she has just insinuated herself (“I can see why he turned out like he did” she says to Christian’s father), regardless of whether that’s very wise; nothing she does is very wise, but it works, give or take.


Wood has never been more goofily likeable, from congratulating Christina’s stepmother Trixie (Christine Woods) on her coffee (“Thanks for the cappuccino. The foam was amazing”) to showing rudimentary computer skills (“You’re so sly, but so am I”: obviously a fan of Manhunter) and even less convincing ones with throwing stars (although, like Jack Burton, he hits a target – sort of – when lives depend on it). He has a magnificently expressive pooch too (witness its reaction to “It’s butthole time!”).


In some respects, I Don’t Feel at Home in This World Anymore recalls the shambling gait of the Coen Brothers’ stoner take on Raymond Chandler, The Big Lebowski; both begin with a robbery that initiates a spurt of amateur detective work, in which the protagonists succeed through luck rather than judgement or skill.  But, while Blair’s movie is much bloodier and less cartoonish, it’s also possibly more optimistic and burdened with more heart; it is, after all, a vision of her dead grandmother that leads Ruth to the imperilled Tony and so provides her with an answer when she most needs it. This is great, at times queasy, fun, and shows Macon Blair as a ridiculously competent all-rounder (at least he has the restrain not to furnish the score as well – he had to make do with the fine tuning of his brothers Will and Brooke).



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?