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

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

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.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

I can’t be the worst. What about that hotdog one?

Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022) (SPOILERS) It would have been a merciful release, had the title card “ The End ”, flashing on screen a little before the ninety-minute mark, not been a false dawn. True, I would still have been unable to swab the bloody dildoes fight from my mind, but at least Everything Everywhere All at Once would have been short. Indeed, by the actual end I was put in mind of a line spoken by co-star James Wong in one of his most indelible roles: “ Now this really pisses me off to no end ”. Or to put it another way, Everything Everywhere All at Once rubbed me up the wrong which way quite a lot of most of the time.

We’ve got the best ball and chain in the world. Your ass.

Wedlock (1991) (SPOILERS) The futuristic prison movie seemed possessed of a particular cachet around this time, quite possibly sparked by the grisly possibilities of hi-tech disincentives to escape. On that front, HBO TV movie Wedlock more than delivers its FX money shot. Elsewhere, it’s less sure of itself, rather fumbling when it exchanges prison tropes for fugitives-on-the-run ones.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

So, you’re telling me that NASA is going to kill the President of the United States with an earthquake?

Conspiracy Theory (1997) (SPOILERS) Mel Gibson’s official rehabilitation occurred with the announcement of 2016’s Oscar nominations, when Hacksaw Ridge garnered six nods, including Mel as director. Obviously, many refuse to be persuaded that there’s any legitimate atonement for the things someone says. They probably weren’t even convinced by Mel’s appearance in Daddy’s Home 2 , an act of abject obeisance if ever there was one. In other circles, though, Gibbo, or Mad Mel, is venerated as a saviour unsullied by the depraved Hollywood machine, one of the brave few who would not allow them to take his freedom. Or at least, his values. Of course, that’s frequently based on alleged comments he made, ones it’s highly likely he didn’t. But doesn’t that rather appeal to the premise of his 23-year-old star vehicle Conspiracy Theory , in which “ A good conspiracy theory is an unproveable one ”?

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.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .