Skip to main content

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer
(2017)

(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite


Lanthimos’ conceit in Sacred Deer isn’t as broad as that of the more obviously quirky The Lobster, but it’s similarly straight-faced in terms of morbidly humorous execution. I referred to that film’s points as “really rather crude”, and I could level the same charge at Sacred Deer and then some. Indeed, in retrospect, I feel I was possibly too kind to The Lobster. There’s something soullessly empty about the way Lanthimos disinters his pockets to reveal a human foible he wishes to “examine” through attacking it in the most absurd/ extreme/ insidious manner possible. 


Now obviously, he may be your cup of tea, in which case you’ll disagree vehemently, but for me he elicits the same kind of disdain as Lars von Trier (albeit, I know the latter’s work enough just to avoid it now, and I haven’t quite reached that point with Lanthimos). Actually, while researching this piece, I came across a Guardian review comparing him to von Trier and Michael Haneke – I generally have a lot more time for the latter – in which he admitsI’m interested in messing with what they – they being average people, inevitably lesser ones than he – think is the norm”.


Lanthimos’ style as a director, aided and abetted by regular cinematographer Thimios Bakatakis, has led to some superficial comparisons to Kubrick, with its icy compositions and glacial pacing – and whatever else I’ll say about him, visually he’s undeniably skilful – but emotionally and tonally he strikes me as a very different character. There’s a very intentional provocative, toying quality that’s closer to the Dogme approach; I don’t know, but I suspect he’s as happy to have audiences dislike his work as adore it. A pronounced response is all that’s important. Mine is that his films are the equivalent of one-joke comedies (and humour-wise they can be), where the set-up quickly gives way to tiresome indulgence. I don’t often have the urge to switch off a movie, but I was getting there with Sacred Deer.


A problem with the mission statement “to mess with the norm” is that you really need to present a norm to undercut, and you need to actually challenge rather than flexing a muscle that is really rather familiar, just not so much in presentational style. Lanthimos expressly attempts to operate outside norms anyway, be it the pecularities of conversation or the modes of performance he extracts from his actors. In Sacred Deer, he’s ostensibly rehearsing – as suggested by the title – the idea of justice meted for actions taken. Agamemnon killed one of Artemis’ sacred deer, and she demanded the sacrifice of Iphigenia in return. One can readily recognise the theme, be it eye-for-an-eye justice or instant karma, except that here it’s played out as an absurdist Sophie’s Choice, with Colin Farrell’s heart surgeon in denial that one of his family must die at his hand or they will all die, judgement meted by the son (Barry Keoghan) of a man who expired while Farrell operated under the influence.


Lanthimos engages in much queasily playful tension as the scenario unfolds, with Keoghan’s little Damien in the family’s midst, interposing himself on the affections of (just) teenage daughter Raffey Cassidy. It’s younger son Sunny Suljic who succumbs first, though, with resultingly combative attitudes over who will survive surfacing on his sister’s part. The acidic examination of the insulations and betrayals within a family unit was also something poked at in The Lobster, but where that picture’s premise hewed closer to the Python-esque, this one’s foundations are very much in the horror genre, turning domestic bliss into a cauldron of distrust and contempt as parents trade spleen while their children’s life forces ebb away. 


Naturally, as with The Lobster, the absurdity of the “power” (be it turning someone into an animal or casting a spell of vengeance) is offered no underpinning, excepting that here at least, it is acknowledged as something out of the ordinary. Returning to my initial response, as soon as Farrell was making nice to Keoghan, it was clear Sacred Deer was going to try my patience, Keoghan playing up the face of a teenager you absolutely would not take home to your family, even if you’re suffering guilt deep down over your culpability in his father’s death; in that respect, far from messing with norms, Lanthimos is simply falling in line with so many horror movies where you wonder why you’re giving your time to such tenuous trifles. The difference being, Lanthimos is critically acclaimed, and most horror movies are not; I felt throughout that I’d seen it all before, that what was unfolding was tiresomely predictable, and that its director’s stylistic touches compounded rather than diluted the problem.


Many reviews have breathlessly gushed about The Killing of a Sacred Deer being a modern Greek tragedy, while Lanthimos believes it’s a chortlesome comedy (I can see the comparison to League of Gentlemen, actually, which I never cared for either). I guess, as long as you’re getting something positive from it, it’s genre-spanning capacities are an enormous boon. I couldn’t wait for it to be over.


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

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.

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.

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.

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…

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

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.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

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

They say if we go with them, we'll live forever. And that's good.

Cocoon (1985) Anyone coming across Cocoon cold might reasonably assume the involvement of Steven Spielberg in some capacity. This is a sugary, well-meaning tale of age triumphing over adversity. All thanks to the power of aliens. Substitute the elderly for children and you pretty much have the manner and Spielberg for Ron Howard and you pretty much have the approach taken to Cocoon . Howard is so damn nice, he ends up pulling his punches even on the few occasions where he attempts to introduce conflict to up the stakes. Pauline Kael began her review by expressing the view that consciously life-affirming movies are to be consciously avoided. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re definitely wise to steel yourself for the worst (which, more often than not, transpires). Cocoon is as dramatically inert as the not wholly dissimilar (but much more disagreeable, which is saying something) segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie directed by Spielberg ( Kick the Can ). There