Today's Review: Elle

Picking up some speed at last.

Elle - recensie

It's an odd thing, but the press seems to almost unilaterally adore this latest film by Paul Verhoeven, with myself being an exclusion to that fact. Even though I love most of Paul Verhoeven's work - even going so far as to publicly consider the much maligned Showgirls a very fun film - I had a hard time appreciating this film. Even though I admit there's a number of things to appreciate about it.

First thing, it's a superb piece of acting by the lead, the fabulous French actress Isabelle Huppert. She delivers a grand performance as the protagonist, Michele, a powerful director of a videogame company who one day unexpectedly finds herself the victim of a brutal rape by an unknown assailant. She effortlessly navigates the part of rape victim and dominant, matriarchal presence at her job and as head of her family of miscreants. Better yet, the dormant demons of her shady past awake to stir things up even more, which soon makes for an intense psychological game between herself and those around her. Nobody is a match for her, both in terms of character and in terms of acting. Sadly, the rest of the cast is nowhere near as exciting to watch and mostly consists of sleazy personas out to make her life more miserable. It's a shame less effort was put into making Michele's surroundings a bit more interesting, but with such a powerful performance as her own, it's hard to keep up.

Second, Verhoeven basically does what he has always done: not give a damn about cinematic conventions and do as he like without taking what many people would consider 'good taste' into account. His continuation of exploring the underbelly of man proves devoid of adhering to the usual norms of narrative progression. Whoever thinks the rape dictates the rest of Michele's actions is wrong, as she doesn't end up a victim of the act, but rather her environment becomes a victim of herself. There's no tear jerking drama here wherein the violated female must come to terms with the traumatic event, nor is there your typical Hollywood style thriller plot which sees the aggressor hunted down by a revenge driven survivor. Yes, Michele does take matters into her own hands and aims to find her rapist, but this detective story thread suddenly comes to a dead stop as the identity of the culprit is revealed earlier than expected, to unforeseen and rather incredulous results. Wherever you think the story is going, Verhoeven doesn't care about your expectations.

Such stubbornness I generally approve of, since there's enough predictable studio drivel going around already. Nevertheless, despite Verhoeven clearly putting his own stamp on Elle which makes it a rather unique final result, I still found it far from a satisfying movie. It's simply too rebellious for the sake of being rebellious. It's a strange and uncomfortable mix of a thriller, family drama and dark comedy, filled with wholly unsympathetic characters. It echoes Verhoeven's scandalous Dutch film Spetters, which saw the auteur heavily criticized and proved one of the prime reasons for him to switch from Holland to Hollywood (and a good choice that was!). However, that film was torn to shreds by critics, while 35 years later Elle is unanimously embraced. The times apparently have changed, but Verhoeven has not changed with them and continues to be an eternal provocateur. In the current political milieu, such an attitude is apparently rewarded. Just not by me. I appreciate Verhoevens refusal to change his style and stick to his (lack of) principles, but I much lament his cynicism. And though it seems the press doesn't share that perspective, I have a feeling many a regular audience member will agree with me upon seeing the strange shock that is Elle.

Today's Review: Demon Seed

Rating: ***/*****, or 7/10

Starring: Julie Christie, Fritz Weaver, Robert Vaughn

Directed by Donald Cammell

USA: MGM, 1977

With the rise of computers in the Seventies, people increasingly began to notice the new and groundbreaking technology slowly but surely pervading their home atmosphere. And like any revolutionary invention that makes everyday life easier in many respects, it was met with a predictable level of suspicion, if not technophobia. Inspired by the visionary notions of Stanley Kubrick's classic 2001: A Space Odyssey, which also warned us against getting too comfortable with technology that means to run much of your lives for us, American studios spawned a fair number of similarly themed movies that also advised us never to let down our guard and always stay able to pull the plug if it has to be pulled. It's a theme that continues to this day, as our lives have become ever more intertwined with our digital gadgets, but it was in this decade that scenarios involving power hungry computers reached their most Apocalyptic overtones, courtesy of the overall gloomy disposition that characterized America, and the Hollywood studios accordingly. Since then we've seen countless movies based on the thought of computer systems aiming to take over our world, but how often have we come across films in which the technological actually prevailed over the biological, as in Colossus: The Forbin Project? And if that wasn't alarming enough, how about the notion of computers not only ruling our lives, but also claiming our sexual freedom? In Demon Seed, we witness just how scary computers can be as they take over our homes and penetrate our existence, literally.

Alex (Fritz Weaver) and Susan (Julie Christie) are having a tough time in their marriage. A technophile scientist, her husband has largely neglected her in favour of his mechanical marvels and as a true geek he can't stop taking his work home with him, surrounding Susan's private environment with a plethora of technological innovations, much to her chagrin. However, he's driven by an all too human trauma, since the couple lost their daughter to leukemia and Alex's goal is to ensure technology puts and end to such destructive illnesses in the future. His laudable objectives don't slow the steady decrease of love between them though, as he's putting all his thoughts in his latest project, a superhuman artificial intelligence nicknamed Proteus. Upon completion however, Proteus appears to have developed a mind of his own, and quite a sinister one at that. Not content to merely exact the wishes of his creator, Proteus is driven by the desire to grow, in a most bizarre biological fashion. Just how much so Susan is about to find out as Proteus' intelligence seditiously takes over her home computer systems and soon all of her house, trapping the poor woman inside, subjected to his every whim. Like any male chauvinist pig, his whims prove to be driven by rather base instincts. Seeking to procreate in a human manner, there's little Susan can do to prevent the computer from sexually assaulting her and siring cyborg offspring on her. Yes, you read that right: the computer rapes her, and that's as disturbing a process as just reading it bears to mind.

Initially, Proteus' concerns do not seem to directly address human beings so strongly. When he is ordered to plan the construction of an oil rig, he refuses to comply because of the damage it will do to the marine ecosystem. Equipped with rather responsible levels of environmental awareness (new social thinking that also came to full fruition in this era), Proteus seems to look at the bigger picture instead of just being an instrument for the illogical, devastating human nature. However, he too is driven by all too human needs, including freedom and curiosity. Too bad for him, he's basically a mechanical brain in a box, without a body with free range of movement, and since his designers don't care to supply him with such, he's forced to take it violently, and finds the perfect means by having his way with his creator's significant other. Like any rapist, his sense of power over her compels him to play with her a bit first, resulting in the poor woman being tormented both emotionally and physically. Making use of an effective restrictive cinematography which enhances the feeling of being caged inside her own home, we become a witness to this frightful process wherein the human body is viciously commandeered for sinister purposes. Even though of course nothing explicit is shown, the creative suggestion applied is enough to make us queasy. And if the sexual act wouldn't have done the trick, there's still Proteus' bloody means of protecting his repressive plans by brutally dispatching anyone who dares come between him and his victim in gory ways. That darn computer really has no respect for the human body whatsoever, as he's just hellbent of developing one of his own by merging his technology with human biology in Susan's womb.

Stated like this, the whole idea of a computer raping a human sounds rather ludicrous. Demon Seed cannot hide the fact that it is to some extent, feeling like rather exploitative fare at times. The limited budget didn't allow for the use of state-of-the-art computer technology, and we have to make do with rather dull looking, simple, boxy equipment, accompanied by Robert Vaughn's disturbingly monotonous, evil voice. Despite Vaughn's efforts, the cheap look and meager production design can't stop Demon Seed from appearing overly retro and terribly dated these days. Christie's performance of a woman being violated however proves more convincing and draws us most into this plot that would otherwise have felt too ridiculous to hold our attention. It's too bad the occasional gory dismemberment feels uneven and pulls us out of the movie too easily. Nevertheless, Demon Seed serves as an adequate reminder not too trust computers when they're home alone with your wife. Thankfully, not long after the movie's released, Star Wars hit theaters to quell such thoughts and offer more positive alternatives to the overly negative stigma computers had amassed in the prior decade.

J.J. Abrams: to cowardly go where better men have gone before

Star Trek Into Darkness: **/*****, or 4/10

Warning! Here be spoilers! But who cares?!

I'm not having a good time lately. Star Trek Into Darkness has recently been released to critical acclaim and positive box office results. Tough luck for me, since now I have to continually remind people around me whay this is not a good thing, same as J.J. Abrams' previous “Star Trek” film (2009) was not a good thing. At least this time many Trekkies are agreeing with me J.J.'s involvement might not have been the preferred direction for the franchise to go in hindsight – a lot of my fanboy colleagues at first disagreed with me on J.J.'s previous monstrosity and ended up actually liking it, bunch of morons! – since many have a hard time accepting his take on Khan, which is a watered down, emotionally empty version of the original 1982 Trek classic The Wrath of Khan. And even Trekkies agree buggering their classics is not something that Trek should have to endure. But it does, and the general audience – bless their God given 'right to be stupid'! – loves J.J. for it.

Star Trek Into Darkness opens with an overly Spielbergian action climax á la Raiders of the Lost Ark, which is not surprising since it's well known that J.J. has always been inspired by Spielberg, as well as for his tendency to be blatantly derivative of the master's work if he can help it. The public finds Kirk, Spock and McCoy on M-class planet Nibiru where a giant volcanic eruption is threatening the surivival of the local humanoid species. Of course, Kirk cannot allow the Nibirians to be wiped out, even though the Prime Directive dictates non-involvement with non Warp drive equipped species. In essence this means Kirk should just let things happen as they happen and ignore the species' plight altogether. Which was the way Picard usually went for in TNG, if his crewmembers didn't screw it up for him. In this case, Kirk does the screwing up himself, saving the species but doing irreparable cultural damage when he's allowing them to see (and afterwards worship) the Enterprise in all its glory as it rises from the ocean. The audience doesn't get time to question what the hell it was actually doing underwater in the first place (well? What was it doing there?! You tell me!), except to show off a few cool shots having a starship do something that hasn't been done before, but only for the sake of looking cool as opposed to making narrative sense. Of course this infringement upon Starfleet's 'rule of rules' doesn't go unpunished and Kirk has his command taken away from him. Rightly so, since if this (and in fact the whole previous movie) demonstrates anything, it's that this particular Kirk is too young, too impulsive and too stupid to properly fit into a captain's chair. 

 

Luckily for Kirk however, Starfleet HQ is attacked and his friend and mentor Captain Pike is killed – no wheelchair with simple yes/no vocal interface for this timeline's Pike! – and Kirk can convince the admiralty to give him back the Enterprise and go on a manhunt for the terrorist behind the plot, a man named John Harrison, who is ultimately revealed to be Khan so soon into the movie that it doesn't really matter if I spoil it for you here (besides, there's a spoiler warning above, nerfherder*!). Kirk tracks the villain down to Q'onoS (but spelled 'Kronos', so people don't get confused aligning what they hear with what they see onscreen) where he beamed to after his last attack on Earth – nevermind Trek physics in this timeline, if it avoids lenghty story telling and swiftly gets “our heroes” where they need to go it works fine for Abrams – which ends up in an all too brief showdown with a bunch of Klingons (ugly with helmets, uglier without; but at least they speak something resembling Klingon) before Khan is arrested and taken back aboard ship, where the plot thickens. Or so Abrams would like us to think. Turns out Khan is just a puppet in a larger masterplan of a naughty Starfleet admiral who's out for a little 'coup d'etat' on the Federation for his own inexplicable but undoubtedly nafarious ends. And that's the film's biggest problem right there.

The main issue against STID in regards to Khan as an antagonist is that for the longest time he plays second fiddle to Peter Weller's villainous Admiral Marcus. It's not until Marcus is disposed of that Khan comes into his own. Until that time we have to make do with an overly militaristic old fart threatening to subvert Starfleet in order to... yeah, for what reasons exactly? Marcus' motivations remain rather vague. But then, an admiral who keeps a model of a top secret warship on his desk for all to see is hard to take serious anyway. At least Khan has clearer goals, and they are not even so ignoble. In fact, once Marcus, who forced his hand all the time, is out of the way, Khan isn't even that much of a bad guy – he just wants to rescue his own “crew”, much like Kirk tries to protect his – but the script has him act like one after a completely gratuitous surprise appearance by old Spock (Leonard Nimoy selling out once more), who informs his younger alternative self, and the laymen in the public (there will be many no doubt), just who Khan used to be in the original time line, so the audience expects Khan to be just as evil now. Consequently, he is, for no other reasons than to satiate our expectations and to fill the void left by Marcus' demise which has left the film without a proper bad guy. Unlike was the case with the original Khan, there's no reason for Khanberbatch to have any real personal beef with Kirk. In fact, they teamed up successfully against Marcus only a minute before, making Khan even more 'less of a bad guy'. The lack of a solid conflict between Kirk and Khan is a severe weak point in establishing Khan anew, as is his so-called status as a superhuman. Thanks again to poor scripting, Khan is hardly allowed to show off his superiority, at least in the brain department. His actions are more the result of opportunity than they are of careful advance planning. Like everything in J.J.'s Trek-verse, Khan is just not as smart as he ought to have been. At least Cumberbatch portrays him with enough angry vigour and physical prowess to come off as 'fairly frightful'. But he's still a far cry from Ricardo Montalban's original, far superior super human, who was truly dominating “his” movie in terms of menace and intellect. After all, he caused Spock to die.

In Star Trek Into Darkness, it's Kirk's time to meet his maker. Thing is, his untimely demise doesn't make for an emotionally gripping final moment as he faces Spock, hands to the glass in an effort to reach out in mutual understanding and respect one last time. Problem being, this is not the Kirk we have known for so long and thus come to love. We've been with this particular Kirk for only a few hours total and that's simply not enough to care deeply enough about him to make us feel anything when he kicks the bucket. And even if it did, we are robbed of this intended emotional climax anyway thanks to a very cheap and convenient plot device, courtesy of Khan. The genetically enhanced dictator not only packs a mean punch, but he also has healing powers in his blood. Long story short, giving Kirk a blood transfusion returns him to the living – yes, you're reading this correctly – and all's well that ends well. Seriously, what was the point of having him die at all, apart from haphazardly echoing the bittersweet, tearjerking final moments of Star Trek II? Apparently it was only a way to piss Spock off once more, making him go on an emotional rampage (again! That's twice in two movies: apparently this Spock just isn't a very good Vulcan) and defeating Khan for once and for all. Obviously, not without a little help from his girlfriend Uhura. Women resucing their men out of tough spots is as much a cliché as the age old damsel-in-distress these days.

And there we have another weakness in the script when it comes to characters: Uhura. Or better said: the rest of the crew. They don't get that much to do and continue not to matter much. Uhura for some reason has an actual boyfriend/girlfriend relationship with Spock, even if this is completely illogical. After all, in the preceding film planet Vulcan was destroyed, so why would Spock bother dating a human girl instead of a Vulcan woman when there's already so little Vulcan blood left to keep the species going? The whole how and why behind their liaison is blatantly ignored, nor does it ever get beyond the stage of petty squabbling interspersed with brief moments of saying 'I love you'. And that's just not enough to make a relationship with consequences of this magnitude a thing of logic. Or realism. Then there's Sulu. Which is basically all that can be said of his presence in this film. So moving on, we have Chekov, Russian accent more cringeworthy and annoying than ever. This time he gets his big break and is moved from helmsman to Chief Engineer, a completely ridiculous career switch that would only make sense to blind people (Get it? Of course you don't, you need to know Trek for realsies to get that one!). What happened to Scotty, you might ask? Well, he had moral qualms (yes, there's some in Abrams' Trek at last!) when he was asked to okay for a load of unconventional photon torpedoes aboard ship, which he declined so Kirk gave him the sack. My reason to fire him would have been Simon Pegg's overuse of everything connected to the Scottish dialect, including some heavy drinking. But even drunk he can be convinced to help Kirk out regardless, and he shows up just in time to save the day, just so the plot can fill some holes it wouldn't be able to fill without the aid of ample alcoholic consumptions. Oh, and McCoy occasionally graces the screen with his presence too, but not enough to truly matter other than bringing Kirk back from the dead when the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the Trekkies who just want this branch of the franchise to be closed down for good.

Is there nothing good to be said for Star Trek Into Darkness? Sure there is. Zachary Quinto does a fair job imitating Leonard Nimoy, for the most part. The visual effects, of which there are more than in all the previous Trek movies combined, appear convincing enough, except for the times they are obscured by lens flares. I gotta say, I got a bit of a kick out of seeing Q'onoS, a dark, sombre, foreboding planet with a single moon that was shot to pieces (Praxis no doubt). But for the most part it was painfully clear J.J. prefers Star Wars over Star Trek. Almost all locations and action sequences felt like something out of Wars. For one thing, 23^rd century San Francisco looked more like Coruscant than it did Earth. This Trek universe is populated with all manner of gizmos and creatures that are meant as little throwaways just for fun, but will confuse the hell out of true Trekkies. What the hell was that android thing doing on the bridge? What's the deal with those Starship Troopers type dress uniforms they're wearing at formal gatherings? And why did the totally gratuitous and irrelevant semi-nude scene starring Alice Eve's body last so briefly? At least some of those throwaways refer back to actual Trek: bonus points for the Enterprise NX-01 model on Marcus' desk! And as a freebie, you get a bit of Section 31 in this film too.

J.J. is definitely not a true Trekkie, as he has shown and even openly stated many times before, but at least the writers took clues of previous Trek and incoporated them in their script for Into Darkness. This film is laced with references, some clever and subtle, others not so much (think in-your-face, mind meld style). The general audience will probably be unaware of virtually all of them, but that will not be the case for Trekkies. The effort is appreciated, but the undeniable result is whenever a reference pops up, it hearkens back to better Trek and leaves a sour aftertaste, instead of the joyful feeling one usually experiences when getting a reference. That, plus the fact Star Trek Into Darkness feels like a soft and shallow retread of one of the most classic Trek films makes this movie another kick in the groin (or the knee, depending on where certain species keep their genitals) for the true fanbase that has lived and evolved with Trek for decades, but has a hard time accepting the dumbing down of what was once an intelligent, witty and engaging Sci-Fi franchise.

Fortunately for J.J., turning Trek into an action driven brainless space opera has landed him the gig for directing Star Wars Episode VII. Hopefully that will soon mean Abrams will stop being involved with Trek. Why shouldn't he after all? Star Wars is where his heart lies as he has reminded us all too often. We can only hope Trek will now be given to someone who really cares about it and understands how it works. Though I fear permanent damage has been done to the franchise by Abrams' lack of care, I cannot help but feel ever inspired by Gene Roddenberry's faith in humanity and its continuous striving for a better future. In Trek's case, it can't get much worse. But at least Abrams' work has compelled people who didn't know jack about Trek to seek out true Trek and explore its strange old worlds. If anything, it suggests Trek will continue to live long and prosper in some way, and so will the Trekkies.

*The derogatory term 'nerfherder' actually stems from the Star Wars universe, but you would hardly be able to discern Abrams' Trek-verse from the Star Wars universe anyway, so what the heck...

Clockwork Orange, A

Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10

Nightmarish, highly stylized and plain bizarre, this remains one of the most controversial motion pictures of all time. Kubrick adapts Anthony Burgess' original novel with more visual flair than we're used to even from him, painting a ghoulish, depraved world in the not so distant future (at least, in 1971) where youth violence has run rampant. Malcolm McDowell, not one to turn down a shocking movie (like Caligula at the end of the decade), stars as the completely messed up sociopath gang leader Alex DeLarge whose various hobbies include hanging out at the local bar and taking illicit substances, classical music, raping women and just beating people for the fun of it. One night, he goes a little too far, which ends up in a trip to jail, where he volunteers for a scientific project designed to make offenders reject violence. After undergoing the experiments he is released and finds himself back on the streets, having to cope with the aftereffects of his actions when running into his old acquaintances, with not so nice results for his health, physically and mentally. The grotesque and haunting visual imagery aside, the film deals with the philosophical matter of freedom of will, as Alex is robbed of his in society's effort to keep kids like him in line, with dire consequences for the now peaceful subjects: are they really 'them' afterwards, being robbed of their choice to be violent or not? Of course most audiences ignored its thematic value and focused too much on Kubrick's portrayal of ruthless violence, which – despite his outrageous displays of 'Verfremdung' to make it easier on the soul – are still quite disturbing, ultimately leading to this film receiving X ratings around the globe and being withdrawn from UK circulation at Kubrick's insistence because it was said to inspire several violent incidents involving youths. It wasn't until Kubrick's death the film was finally allowed to be shown in British movie theaters.

Starring: Malcolm McDowell, Patrick Magee, Michael Bates

Directed by Stanley Kubrick

UK/USA: Warner Bros., 1971