Showing posts with label tunnel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tunnel. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Eternal uncertainty and the trouble with knowing


A young Dutch couple Rex (Gene Bervoets) and Saskia (Johanna ter Steege) are on holiday in France. They drive a small car with twin bicycles mounted upright on the roof rack, like a pair of riderless horses, one over each of their heads. They wear unusually light colours, and Saskia, a playful, energetic strawberry blonde, radiates effervescent lightness—at one point she performs a Chaplinesque pratfall. Yet shadows loom. The couple traverses a long, dark tunnel, something out of a nightmare, and Saskia relays to Rex a recurring nightmare in which she finds herself trapped inside a golden egg. Then the car runs out of petrol—Rex’s fault—and Rex abandons Saskia to fetch a jerry can from the service station they already passed. They eventually continue on their way, but we are by now watching this immensely unnerving movie with a heightened alertness. We sense that everything, every glance or gesture or bit of happenstance, could be charged with portent. And we would be correct. We watch and wait for something or someone to vanish.   


The Vanishing (1988), the first, Franco-Dutch version of two version directed by the late George Sluzier, is newly available from Criterion and, while not a horror movie per se, is easily one of the creepiest things you could take in this Halloween. Based on Tim Krabbé’s novel The Golden Egg, it’s at once pulpy and profound, archetypical and innovative, employing an age-old anxiogetic scenario—a lover vanishes without a trace—in the service of a narrative that defies conventional strategies. Rather than build suspense regarding the perpetrator of Saskia’s kidnapping, we’re introduced to her kidnapper early on, before the kidnapping even occurs. Rather than ramp up tension in a compressed timeframe, we leap ahead several years in the middle of the film. The resolution, too, works counter to genre dictates, though I’d hate to spoil that here for those of you who haven’t seen this Vanishing.


One could even argue that the protagonist of The Vanishing is in fact not Rex but, rather, Raymond Lermorne (Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu), the middle-class family man and self-confessed sociopath responsible for vanishing Saskia. We see him make pivotal decisions and we learn a lot about his motivations, background and philosophies. He’s a nefarious figure, but also a seeker, animated by great questions: a man on a quest. In a bit of wordplay that, admittedly, probably only makes sense in English, Raymond attempts to entrap his victim by seeking assistance with a small trailer hitch. The word “hitch” gets repeated, and, likewise, Alfred Hitchcock is never far from the viewer’s mind. The Vanishing seems to have absorbed and brilliantly reconfigured elements of several Hitchcock films: The Lady Vanishes (1938), Psycho (1960), Strangers on a Train (1950), whose Bruno Anthony could be Raymond’s uncle.


But Raymond is not necessarily the most troubling character in The Vanishing, whose French title, it should be noted, is L’Homme qui voulait savoir or The Man Who Wanted to Know. Rex is just as obsessive a seeker as Raymond, but Rex’s is more single-minded: years after her disappearance, even after he’s gotten himself a new girlfriend, Rex must, at any cost, find out what happened to Saskia. This intolerance of ambiguity, or “eternal uncertainty,” as Raymond puts it, something of nearly theological force, is The Vanishing’s most psychologically fascinating and finally tragic element. And it’s one of the things that makes this film an enduringly eerie classic. 
                                       

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Don't look back: Irréversible


Doubling back to revisit Gaspar Noé’s Irréversible (2002) for the first time since its initial release, after having recently endured Enter the Void, the New French Extremist’s most recent work, offered diminishing returns with regards to the film’s overall sleaze-bag sensationalism while its notorious mid-point rape scene remains genuinely unbearable, which is some sort of accomplishment. Moving chronologically backwards through its deceptively simple urban Straw Dogs revenge narrative, Irréversible begins in what appears to be a dingy flop house where a mostly naked, daughter-molesting ex-con laments how “time destroys all things,” thus announcing the theme from the outset, lest we fail to grasp it on our own. (In any event, the film ends with this dictum appearing as a closing title card. All in caps. Noé is nothing if not thorough.) From here we hit a gay sex club called the Rectum, a Halloween-lit cavernous labyrinth of cock-sucking and flagellation, and rise to our first climax in which Pierre (Albert Dupontel) smashes a degenerate’s face to a pulp before a handful of cheerfully masturbating spectators, among them the director himself. Take that as you will.


From here we jump back to find Marcus (Vincent Cassel) and Pierre on their way to said face-obliteration, attacking and insulting both a Chinese cabbie and hermaphrodite hooker along the way. “Off to the Rectum!” shouts Cassel, clearly instructed to repeat the word “rectum” as often as possible. (It is fun to say, I suppose, and, like the film's title, has the added benefit of requiring no translation into English.) After this, which is to say before, Marcus’ unspeakably lovely girlfriend Alex (Monica Bellucci) is anally assaulted and viciously beaten for eight unblinking minutes in a red-painted underpass—yet another rectal tunnel! After this, presuming we’re still watching, we learn why Alex took the tunnel, listen to a long, banal, repetitive conversation about sexual pleasure on the métro, and discover a secret Alex has been keeping that makes her fate that much more appalling and tragic.


Time diminishes shock value.
Irréversible’s structure is cleanly aligned to its themes of entropy and inescapable doom, though, seeing the film again after all these years, its effect-before-cause formalism strikes me as little more than a nihilist-sadist pulp thriller version of Jeopardy!: answer first, question second. This is mostly because once you get the gist of Noé’s concept and adjust your senses to the vertigo-inducing camera work there’s little left to explore and so very much to deplore. The actors are obviously of a higher caliber than those in Enter the Void, but they have little to say (the dialogue is blather) and not much to do besides endure ghastly torment or exact medieval violence. I don’t think I’ll be reversing through this one again.