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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).