Monthly Archives: June 2022

  • Men

    Alex Garland (2022)

    Ben Salisbury’s and Geoff Barrow’s relentlessly eerie score for Men is an apt accompaniment to Alex Garland’s latest, an increasingly monotonous horror story.  Garland’s choice of music to play over the opening and closing titles is fitting, too – ‘Love Song’, composed and sung by the late Lesley Duncan.  The film is a denunciation of its title characters generally.  Via Duncan and in the intervening narrative, writer-director Garland co-opts a woman’s voice and point of view, in what seems to be an attempt to convince audiences of his feminist credentials[1].

    Recently widowed Harper (Jessie Buckley) drives to the English village of Cotson where she has rented a large country house.  She’s looking forward to her getaway as a chance to begin to recover from the trauma of her husband’s sudden death:  James (Paapa Essiedu), as the film soon reveals, fell from the balcony of the young couple’s apartment in a London block of flats.  Watching Harper’s arrival at her holiday destination, from an upstairs window of the house, is its owner Geoffrey (Rory Kinnear, wearing a wig and false teeth).  Their opening conversation instantly establishes Geoffrey as exceedingly hearty, awkward and creepy:  Cotson is evidently next door to Royston Vasey.  In the house’s garden there’s an apple tree and Harper helps herself to one of the fruit.  I was infuriated by her assumption that this was OK, and almost relieved when Geoffrey told her off for scrumping, before assuring her he’s only joking.  He isn’t, of course:  he also refers to ‘forbidden fruit’, although this particular Eve seems not tempted but impelled by entitlement to eat thereof.

    Later that afternoon, Harper goes for a walk through the fields and woodland near the house.  She revels in the fresh air and wide-open spaces but not for long.  She follows a disused railway line into a tunnel at the end of which she sees a figure that begins chasing her.  She gets away from it but, after leaving the tunnel and as she takes a photo on her phone, inadvertently snaps a male figure standing outside an abandoned building.  The man isn’t Geoffrey but he is Rory Kinnear (now wearing nothing at all).  The next morning, we see Harper preparing breakfast, so that Alex Garland can display the impressive supply of cutlery in the country house kitchen.  Harper uses a knife to slice a grapefruit in half:  a close-up on the blade is a sure sign it will penetrate human flesh before the film is out.  She video-calls her friend Riley (Gayle Rankin) and conducts her on a tour of the house.  While she’s doing so, Harper sees in the garden the naked man she saw the previous day.  She phones 999 and two uniformed police arrive – one male (Kinnear, of course), one female – to arrest the prowler.  The WPC (Sarah Twomey) talks kindly and sensitively with Harper, a conversation that stands out in the 100 minutes of Men because it’s reasonably natural and unshadowed by menace or aggression.

    You don’t expect rigorous realism in this kind of film; you can still expect credible motivation.   If she’s emotionally fragile and desperate for peace and quiet, why does Harper stay in Cotson after such an unnerving start?  She must in order for the story to keep going but Garland supplies no compelling reason for her staying put – she isn’t, for example, fascinated by her surroundings or determined to subdue her frailties.  In the afternoon, she visits a local church, where she encounters a verbally abusive schoolboy (Kinnear’s face is CGI-grafted onto a child’s body) and a superficially sympathetic vicar (whose wig is worse than Geoffrey’s).  He soon puts his hand on her knee, tells Harper she is ‘an expert in carnality – this is your power’, and insinuates that she may have caused her husband’s death.  She reasonably swears at the reverend and stomps off.  By the time she drops into a pub that evening, we know she’s asking for trouble.  The clientele consists of Geoffrey, the male PC and three new Kinnears – the pub owner and two other baleful-looking customers.  Harper is alarmed to learn from the police officer that the man arrested earlier in the day has now been released.  As she makes her way back to the house, Garland’s horror show goes into overdrive, and stays there until the closing scene.

    Men might have gripped as a bewildering nightmare if Garland hadn’t given so much screen time to Harper’s backstory.  In the film’s prologue, she comes forward to the window of the London apartment to face the camera; we notice, just before James plummets, that Harper’s face is smeared with blood.  Further flashbacks bluntly explain that her husband was abusive and controlling and, for good measure, a self-pitying wimp.  When Harper decided to divorce him James threatened to kill himself and he proves as good as his word.  He’s such an explicit presence in the narrative there’s no mystery about the source of his widow’s fearful, guilt-ridden state of mind or why all the men in Cotson are the same man:  the several incarnations of Rory Kinnear are a colour-blind proxy for Paapa Essiedu’s James.  Even this underlining isn’t enough for Garland.  In his death fall, James breaks his ankle and impales his arm on a railing.  Back from the pub, Harper confronts serial intruders – one Kinnear morphs into another – and grabs a kitchen knife.  When the naked man sticks his arm through the letterbox she stabs him.  He pulls his arm free but it’s split in two, just like James’s (and that grapefruit).  The nasty schoolboy and the handsy vicar take their turn to threaten Harper, and suffer the same injury.

    That pair aren’t the only presences in the church, whose sculptures include a Green Man and a sheela-na-gig – the stylised figure of a naked woman with a hugely pronounced vulva.  These images are enough for Men to have been labelled a folk horror film although they seem more designed to lay the ground for the spectacular, special-effects finale.   The face and body of the naturist Kinnear start to sprout stems and leaves, Green Man-style (and his ankle is badly broken, James-style).  He then turns pregnant and gives birth to the schoolboy, who gives birth to the vicar, who gives birth to Geoffrey.  Garland doesn’t just mount a procession of toxic masculinity but makes that phrase’s adjective redundant:  the poison, according to his film, is pandemic.   Yet Men also, ironically and unintentionally, demonstrates a fair degree of misogyny.  The climactic relay of births may involve only the unfair sex but the obs-and-gynae implications of swollen bellies, vaginal deliveries and afterbirth on the floor of the holiday home are unfortunately confusing:  it’s as if men are so awful they’ll go so far as to imitate women.  The film’s least surprising moment arrives when Geoffrey gives birth to Harper’s late husband:  it’s been clear for over an hour that her rural idyll turned rural ordeal is James-induced.  This capper, if it says anything at all, shows Harper as paranoid – suggests that everything that’s happened in Cotson was a garish exaggeration of her mistreatment by James, maybe even all-a-bad-dream.

    Although I didn’t find Alex Garland’s debut feature Ex Machina (2015) wholly successful, it certainly made me want to see what he did next.  I chickened out of his second film, Annihilation (2018) – the combination of sci-fi and horror and Natalie Portman in the lead was too much – but I was hopeful about Men, given the main names in the cast.  Jessie Buckley goes through the motions very ably but Garland seems to have encouraged her to react to everything, the verdant landscape as much as the horrors, so that she sometimes looks to be over-reacting.  She has none of the freedom she showed in her scenes with the children in Maggie Gyllenhaal’s The Lost Daughter last year or, perhaps more to the point, in Michael Pearce’s psychological thriller Beast (2017).  When he first appears as Geoffrey, Rory Kinnear, although he might be guest-starring in Inside No 9, raises hopes we’ll be in for superior rep acting entertainment on the lines of Alec Guinness’s gallery of caricatures in Robert Hamer’s Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949).  It isn’t Kinnear’s fault that the repeatedly sinister personnel he’s saddled with don’t give him the chance to deliver that.

    A minor, unexplained mystery of Men:  why does Harper rent such an enormous place in which to stay alone?  After a couple of quick tours of the premises – Geoffrey’s, when Harper first arrives, and the interrupted one on FaceTime – Garland doesn’t make much use of the country house’s many rooms:  a cottage would have done just as well.  The morning after the mayhem, Riley (who turns out to be pregnant), arrives at the house.  She’s dismayed by a trail of blood at the entrance but then sees Harper sitting in the grounds outside.  Their exchange of sisterhood smiles is meant to signify a happy ending of sorts but I felt Harper was in need of company more relaxing than Gayle Rankin’s overdone kick-ass Riley.  I’d rather have seen the return of the nice policewoman to assure the heroine she’s not the only girl in the village.

    8 June 2022

    [1] Afternote:  According to the Wikipedia page on Lesley Duncan, both her and Elton John’s versions of ‘Love Song’ are featured in Men – so I may be doing Garland, on this point anyway, a partial injustice.

  • Patriotism

    Yūkoku

    Yukio Mishima (1966)

    Yukio Mishima’s short story ‘Patriotism’ was first published in 1961 and its author ‘turned filmmaker for two days in April 1965 to shoot an adaptation of his … story’.  That quote is from Tony Rayns’s notes for the Criterion Collection edition of Mishima’s film – ditto this summary of its first screenings and reception:

    ‘[Mishima] shot and postproduced the film in secret and premiered it at a private screening at the Cinémathèque française in Paris in September 1965.  Its first public screening was at the Tours Film Festival (at the time, the world’s most prestigious showcase for short films) in January 1966. … When news of Mishima’s film broke in Japan, the response was surprise and intense curiosity. … The film was released theatrically in 1966; it’s still the only high-grossing short film ever distributed in Japan. …’

    Following Mishima’s suicide in November 1970, his widow ‘requested that all existing copies of the film be destroyed … in 2005 the original negatives were discovered in perfect condition, in a tea box at a warehouse at [the Mishimas’] home in Tokyo …The film was released on DVD in Japan in 2006 and then in the US by the Criterion Collection in 2008’ (Wikipedia).  On a friend’s recommendation, I watched Patriotism (or The Rite of Love and Death) on YouTube[1] and found it amazing.

    The twenty-eight-minute, black-and-white film comprises five scenes and features just two characters – Lieutenant Takeyama (played by Mishima) and his wife Reiko (Yoshiko Tsuruoka).  A textual prologue explains that Takeyama was a member of a secret society of young military officers whose attempted but eventually unsuccessful coup d’état in February 1936 resulted in Tokyo being placed under martial law.  His comrades in the group, which claimed loyalty to the emperor but tried to oust his government, had decided that newlywed Takeyama should not take part in the coup.  The mutineers face capital punishment while Takeyama remains a member of the imperial palace guard.  Morally compelled to choose between loyalty to the emperor and loyalty to his condemned-to-death friends, Takeyama decides to kill himself by seppuku.  Reiko agrees to witness his suicide then to follow suit.

    The five scenes describe, in turn, Reiko preparing for her husband’s homecoming, Takeyama’s return and announcement of his decision to die, the couple’s final love-making, the lieutenant’s suicide, and finally Reiko’s.  Except for the film’s final shot, in a Zen Buddhist garden, each scene takes place on a Noh theatre stage with a kanji painting backdrop but the stylisation doesn’t stop the action being dynamic and involving.  The fourth scene, which shows Takeyama’s self-disembowelment, is both the most technically remarkable and the most notorious.  According to Tony Rayns, ‘the aestheticized but realistically detailed presentation of a traditional bushi suicide caused a sensation. Some in the audience fainted …’   Yet Mishima, in honouring what he considers a noble, purifying act, achieves a fine balance between gruesome detail (blood and guts) and suggestive elision (the lather of saliva around Takeyama’s mouth), and not every detail is gruesome.  The camera is often on the face of Reiko, who watches with concern, tears and resignation.

    Such poignancy is no more than you expect after the very impressive third scene, introduced by text explaining that the lovers ‘are able for the first time in their lives to reveal unabashedly their most secret desires and passions.  First the Lieutenant and then Reiko, who has lost all her shyness in the face of death, bids loving farewell to every smallest detail of the other’s flesh’.  In sequences that stand comparison with the love scenes in Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959), Mishima and Yoshiko Tsuruoka, with the help of Kimio Watanabe’s camerawork, truly embody the written words.  And the episode, because of what is to follow and though beautiful, is persistently underscored by one’s awareness of a central theme in Mishima’s work – the connection between erotic love and violent death.

    The version of Patriotism that I watched is accompanied by a new score by the American songwriter and record producer Aaron Embry.  My first reaction was to feel Embry’s score, although dramatically effective, served to distract – because it’s Western music – from the experience of watching a specifically Japanese ritual.   In fact, this is essentially faithful to Mishima’s original choice of music, the ‘Liebestod’ from Wagner’s Tristan and Isolde – a choice that also reflects his broader intentions in filming Patriotism.  Tony Rayns notes that Mishima ‘wanted to create a splash of international notoriety to match the reputation he had already built in Japan’.  He went about this conscientiously, handwriting the scrolling captions quoted in the previous paragraph in English, French and German, as well as Japanese.

    Patriotism is based on an actual coup attempt, the Ni Ni-Roku Jiken of 26th February 1936.  Despite this historical setting, Mishima is dramatising what he saw as the terminal decline of militarism in post-World War II Japan.  When you watch his film on YouTube, the accompanying menu offers a Japanese television interview with him, also from 1966, in which Mishima recalls his reactions to his country’s surrender in August 1945, deplores the ascendancy of Western materialism in Japan in the twenty years since, and reflects on the prospect and meaning of death.  Although he’s cogently articulate, it’s easier to take exception to his ideology when this is put into words.  His film’s potent images are harder to resist, not least because the circumstances in which Mishima’s own life ended give Patriotism, in retrospect, the added intensity of personal testament.

    6 June 2022

    [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO-w-cn-pJM

     

Posts navigation