[Review] - Crackers (1998)

The Christmas season is once again upon us. A time for giving. A time for good cheer. A time for celebrating. A time for stuffing yourself with too much food and beer. It’s also that time of year when the family gets together to enjoy the company of one another. For some families out there, this may be bliss. But for most? Well, it’s usually an exercise in misery. Depending on the fragility of the family in question, of course. Christmas cards tend to opt for the image of the harmonious smiling family sitting by the Christmas tree in peace and harmony. Thank crap for the movies where we can at least get a slice of exaggeration regarding what Christmas is truly like for most of us.

Sure, the dysfunctional Christmas family get-together in film isn’t a new concept. I’m sure that we’ve all seen National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation countless times. But it’s rare to see an Australian slice of Christmas family dysfunction presented on film. Back in 1998, there was one such film that attempted to fill this niche. A relatively low-budget and raucous slice of Australian comedy known as Crackers.

Upon release, it was burdened with a lousy poster that did little to sell the movie. The poster contained a simple image of a ragtag family in front of a red background. Not exactly the most striking of poster images. The title of the film wasn’t exactly a stand-out either. But given my family's love for Christmas Vacation and the many comparisons made by the positive trade reviews, it resulted in a family trip to the cinema to see this slice of Australian Christmas.

I remember it vividly. We were the only four in the cinema at the time. I guess the underwhelming poster did little to spark interest in the majority. Maybe it was a case of bad marketing? Most Australian films tend to have terrible marketing as is. Despite a lackluster poster, the film hidden underneath was anything but rubbish.  I feel it’s an overlooked Australian gem just waiting to be rediscovered.

Crackers tells the tale of the Dredge family as they indulge in the misery of one another's company during the Christmas break. The film is told through the eyes of only child Joey (Daniel Kellie) as he struggles to come to terms with his mother dating again after the tragic loss of his father in an aircraft accident. Not coping with the loss of his father, Joey has developed a bit of a death wish as he keeps chucking himself off of school roofs in a desperate plea for help.

Realizing that they both need a break, his mother, Hilary (Susan Lyons), arranges for them to spend Christmas at her parents' house. Making matters worse, she’s also invited her new boyfriend, Bruno (Peter Rowsthorn), and his angry teenage son, Angus, by whom Joey is constantly antagonized.

The film wastes no time in setting up the stakes. The family packs the car and embarks when the first misfortunes strike. During the car ride, Joey is called a “dickhead” and beaten on by Angus, while the family station wagon is almost totaled in a head-on collision. If there was ever a foreshadow of the chaos to come.

Upon arrival, they’re treated to a meal that consists of charred grilled burnt sausages, lousy-looking potato salad, plenty of white bread covered with thick slabs of butter and a bottle or two of beer to go with it. Angry blow flies swarm about the table as the mean old cuss of a grandfather, Jack (Terry Hill), attempts to kill them with fly spray. Nothing has ever screamed Australian Christmas more so than this.

The stern and stubborn Jack quickly turns his attention to Bruno. Bruno and Jack couldn’t be more different if they tried. Bruno, a fashion photographer from the city, and Jack, a stubborn blue-collar worker from the ‘burbs. Worlds collide as Jack belittles Bruno’s manhood. Tensions further escalate with the arrival of Jack’s estranged father, Albert (Warren Mitchell), an old scoundrel Glaswegian fresh out of prison. With the house packed to the rafters, young Joey is forced into the tool-shed to sleep alongside Albert.

Much like Christmas Vacation before it, the film plays as a loose series of sketches during the days leading up to Christmas. Everyone in the family has their own drama of sorts. Jack still harbors a grudge against his cheating father for abandoning him and his mother when he was a kid. Bruno tries to make an impression on Jack but fails miserably at every turn. Aunt Dotty (Valerie Bader) is a frumpy, lonely woman whose best years are fading away. The grandmother, Violet (Maggie King), is ever-so cheerful and tries to keep the family together but is utterly oblivious to the fracturing seams.

Meanwhile, Joey is confronted with the devastating reality of Bruno potentially becoming his new stepfather as he learns that his mother is pregnant. As Joey navigates through the trials and tribulations of dysfunction, he finds solace in his kinship with Albert. Eventually, a through line develops as the pair strike up a deal to fix up an old weathered sailboat to give as a Christmas gift to Jack.

The comedy is mainly situational, but Director David Swann does well to keep escalating without ever going overboard. The jokes come quickly as it moves from day to day in the build to Christmas. As Murphy’s Law states: anything that can go wrong will go wrong. For what’s Christmas without the occasional fistfight at the local pub, mince pies spiked with dope or even the family dog being accidentally burnt to a crisp on the good old Aussie barbie?

It’s difficult not to compare Crackers to another popular 90’s Australian comedy, The Castle. Both films play a large chunk of their comedy at the expense of the quirks of the modern suburban Australian family. But whereas the Kerrigan family is a rather sweet-natured family with only a hint of dysfunction bubbling underneath, the Dredge family straight up wears its dysfunction on its sleeves for all to see. But for anyone who has endured the chaos of such a family, it’s still remarkably relatable, even if it is incredibly broad in stereotype.

How many times have we all heard that same story of the Christmas from hell spent with the dreaded in-laws recounted by our married friends? Or those days spent with family members you may not always like but have to love anyway? Or those dreaded Christmas lunch conversations where your elders judge your every decision through a thin lens of discontent and disappointment? Or worse still, the dreaded conversations where they compare you to someone else in the extended family as if you could never live up to their preferred golden child? We’ve all heard these stories time and time again. We’ve all undoubtedly lived these moments time and time again.

This is where Crackers scores many of its laughs for me, as it dials these situations up to 11. The big laugh-out-loud set pieces aside, the little cringe moments, such as Jack’s not-so-subtle critiques towards Bruno’s perceived lack of manhood, make Crackers excel the most in its relatability.

But even amidst this chaos, the film never forgets to remind us that the ties which shackle us together are what truly makes the Christmas spirit meaningful. As doomed as this family seemingly is on the surface, underneath still pumps a sincere beating heart as this gaggle of geese eventually learns the true meaning of Christmas through tragedy.

As such, it always baffled me why this film never caught on with a mainstream audience. Even here in Australia, it seems to be mostly forgotten. Maybe it was just too Australian for its own good? Perhaps it was a victim of a terrible marketing campaign? With a delightful ensemble cast of misfits, I would have thought this would have more legs than it did. Whatever the reason, it’s a shame it never got the attention it deserved.

Growing up Australian meant I couldn’t always relate to that picturesque White Christmas that American films love to showcase. But I could more than relate to the sting of a Dry Summer Christmas with a smoking barbecue out the back. Sure, perhaps it’s not the greatest film this country has ever produced, but it certainly has its charms that many Australians could easily relate to. In the tradition of the great Australian comedy, Crackers piles misery on top of self-deprecation but also manages to find a good heart underneath. In that sense, it’s very larrikin in spirit.


- Daniel M

Read More

[Feature] - Cold Fish (Or An Examination of Societal Pressures In A Conformist Society)

Have you ever felt downtrodden? Have you ever felt past your prime? Have you ever felt so disrespected and overlooked that it makes you boil with anger deep inside? Have you ever felt so powerless to actually let that anger out in any healthy fashion? Have you ever felt that deep resentment fester until it reached its boiling point? Welcome to the world of Nobuyuki Shamoto (Mitsuru Fukikoshi) in the Japanese film, Cold Fish.

Our first impressions of Shamoto are that of a meek, mild mannered and mostly unmotivated owner of a store specializing in rare tropical fish. A widower who has recently remarried, although his daughter deeply resents both him and his new bride. His new bride also doesn’t seem to think much of him as it seems to be a marriage born out of financial security rather than true love.

Deep down in his heart, all Shamoto wants is that loving harmonious family unit. The type of perfect model family you might glimpse in a photo frame at your local store. While visiting his favorite pastime, the local planetarium, he frequently dreams of such a perfect family moment. He envisions his new wife and daughter by his side enjoying his company and laughing together. In reality though, what he really has is a completely dysfunctional family that is bordering on the edge of self-destruction.

One night while out with her boyfriend, his daughter Mitsuko is caught shoplifting. The store owner summons Shamoto and his wife down to the store in order to deal with his daughter. Enter Yukio Murata (Denden), a regular patron of the store and fellow rare tropical fish store owner. He persuades the store owner to drop the pending charges against Mitsuko and invites the family back to his own store.

Back at his store, Murata convinces Shamoto to allow Mitsuko to not only come and work for him but also to live with him. For it turns out that Murata has taken in a range of young girls with the aim of giving them work as in-store models/saleswomen of sorts. The old adage of “sex sells” is alive and well here as they flaunt their young feminine bodies around the store in skimpy outfits.

Shamoto is taken aback at first but then sees it as an opportunity to get his daughter out of the house and a chance to get some private time with his new bride. He agrees to this also based on Mitsuko’s enthusiasm at the offer at hand. Eventually the two store owners go into business with one another in more ways than one as Shamoto quickly learns of the darker side of Murata’s day-to-day operations. That Murata is quite literally killing the competition.

Sion Sono’s film Cold Fish is loosely based on a true murder story in which a dog breeder and his wife killed at least four clients in what would become known as the Saitama Dog Lover Murders. The film uses this as a loose basis in order to study both a dysfunctional Japanese family unit and to also examine the harsh realities of Japanese society in a microcosm.

Screenwriter Yoshiki Takahashi has altered the scenario from being about Dog Breeders to Tropical Fish Suppliers for reasons of removing the potential hassle of dealing with numerous dogs on set. Another reason for the change, as stated by Takahashi, was due to his willingness to examine these characters' actions through the lens of the aftermath of the bubble economy that Japan experienced during the 80s. Which resulted in the financial growth of many Tropical Fish Stores at that time.

This directly plays into the stark contrast between Murata and Shamoto. As aforementioned, Shamoto is largely unambitious and set in his ways. His store does well enough to keep the lights on but it's clear he has no real aspirations for personal or even financial growth. He’s more than happy not to disrupt the flow of things.

Meanwhile Murata is the total opposite. A man driven by greed and excess. He openly flaunts his worth with exquisite vehicles such as the Red Ferrari he drives. His wife screams that of a ‘Trophy Wife’. His store is twice the size and caters to more foot traffic than that of Shamoto's store in thanks to his shrewd business tactics. Murata is very much a ‘moriagaru’ type. Boisterous to the core and completely in your face. He relishes in the power and fortune he has accumulated and will gladly curb stomp anyone who stands in his way. Take his first shared private moment with Shamoto’s wife where he forces himself upon her and seemingly rapes her without regard. It's clear given his stature in life that he feels completely above the law.

The female roles in this film are certainly a factor that has raised a few eyebrows as some have labeled the film as being misogynistic. Sex and violence is a huge factor in this film and the two main women largely serve both sides of the coin. One side being the pure victim and the other side representing the instigator. I would argue though that the film offers a harsh critique of the modern expectations of the female role in Japanese society more so than it does any sort of actual reinforcement.

Shamoto’s new bride Taeko (Megumi Kagurazaka) looks to be approaching her early 30s. It seems entirely obvious that her marriage to Shamoto is one born out of convenience rather than anything approaching love.

There is a saying in Japan that if a woman is not married by the time she is 25 then she is a “Christmas Cake.” A rather sexist slur comparing women to pastries that can’t be sold past the date of December 25th. This is a rather harsh societal pressure placed upon Japanese women as they either marry young or else be considered of little to no value.

Based on this societal pressure, it seems obvious that her marriage to Shamoto is a total sham born out of convenience as she yearns for her former days of hedonism. We see this as she pushes Shamoto aside any time he makes a pass at her. It’s clear she has no real desire for the man and perhaps for good reason considering the shell he hides himself in. Therefore, she plays the role of the good obedient domesticated wife while burying her resentment at the life she has settled for. As noted, she is also very much the perpetual victim as she finds herself thoroughly abused by the men in her life.

His daughter Mitsuko has a rebellious fiery spirit about her. Lost and confused after the death of her mother, she deeply resents her father and his new choice of bride. She certainly isn't shy in expressing this as she lays her boot into her step-mothers stomach. With Shamoto’s complete withdrawal, she has no real male role model in her life to look up to. If her own father has no self-respect then why should she have any for him in return? Hence her attraction to Murata’s boisterously overflowing self confidence.

Then we come to Murata’s wife Aiko (Asuka Kurosawa), who is perhaps the most fascinating female character in the movie. Aiko is not only fully aware of her husband's crimes but is also completely complicit in them. She completely owns her psychopathic tendencies and relishes in them if not more than her husband does his own.

She is completely and utterly damaged goods as she is more than willing to use her sexuality to seduce her victims before delivering the final blow. As for her feelings regarding her husband, it’s hard to say if she has any real respect or even love for him, or if she is just stringing him along too as she seems to do with everyone else she comes into contact with.

At one point, she makes a pass at Shamoto and tries to pressure him into replacing Murata entirely as her new lover and partner in crime. If she were to be compared to an animal, she’d be best compared to a black widow. She’ll make love to you, but will also eat you alive the moment you no longer serve her any benefit. Unlike Taeko, she's anything but the obedient or domesticated housewife. Instead, she completely owns her true nature and has entirely freed herself from the aforementioned societal pressures.

As for Shamoto, he serves mostly as a conduit for the audience to observe the mayhem surrounding him. His progression is not dissimilar to that of Dustin Hoffman’s character in Straw Dogs. As he becomes more and more entangled into the sordid world of Murata’s killings, he finds his own morality being severely tested. The Murata’s methods of killing usually involve a digestive form of poison. Once their victim is dead, they take their bodies out to a shack in the remote countryside and hack the bodies to pieces before burning the pieces and scattering the ashes in the nearby river. Make no mistake about it, it’s not at all shy in presenting its gore as the film highlights just how messy it is to hack a body to pieces. You could almost say it’s as if the Coen brothers directed a Japanese serial killer movie.

Shamoto is initially sickened by the lack of humanity on display as he plays witness to the Murata’s hacking their victims to pieces with glee. But eventually he starts to grow indifferent as the bodies pile up. Still, he plays the weak subservient assistant to Murata just hoping to survive another day.

Murata eventually tires of Shamoto’s weak willed nature and finally lays the harsh truth on him. He berates Shamoto, belittling his manhood by calling out his failures as a husband and father. He goads and taunts Shamoto as he lays the truth on him about his weak willed nature and his inability to solve the problems he has faced throughout life. Before finally revealing the truth that he fucked Taeko.

At first, it’s obvious to see the mechanical point of this scene as it serves Shamoto’s final breaking point at the hands of Murata. But on another level, one could maybe argue that this speech is potentially a scathing indictment of the passive nature of Japanese society in general.

I can only speak as a foreigner looking in from the outside here and perhaps I’m wrong in my assessment. But based on my own experiences of studying some Japanese culture, I have come to learn that the nature of this culture is very passive in general. To my understanding, it is a tendency for Japanese people to avoid confrontation wherever they can as politeness is key to a functional society. Murata is the polar opposite of this though. He’s not shy in voicing his complete and utter disdain for Shamoto or those around him.

Shamoto may as well represent your common Japanese man or woman. He’s entirely passive and almost afraid to step out of line. Whereas Murata has fully embraced his psychopathic tendencies and has entirely freed himself from all of the bullshit that comes with society. Or to quote Yoshiki Takahashi; “Murata is the missing link between the old strong and fearless Japanese army-type in contrast to the quiet-reserved type of character you see these days.”

In Japan, there is a saying that people wear three faces; the face you show to the public, the face you show to your inner circle and the face that is your true face. To an extent, the Shamoto's abide to this as they hide their true feelings even from one another. While the Murata's mostly wear their true emotions out on their sleeves. Murata himself is almost a complete rejection of this notion. I say almost because he is still wearing the one mask posing as a respectable businessman for the public eye. But outside of his little secret, he is very much a ‘what you see is what you get’ type of man. Thus this speech winds up feeling like it could be more so an indictment of passive Japanese society as a whole. But I can’t say for sure being a foreigner and all.

Shamoto eventually breaks under the pressure of this goading and develops a new found backbone. He rushes back to the store and grabs his daughter by the hair dragging her kicking and screaming to the car. He drives back home where he orders his wife to prepare a final meal of sorts. They eat as a family unit although the tension in the air is palpable. Mitsuko is called outside by her boyfriend but is intervened by Shamoto as he lays his boot into the boyfriend before knocking his daughter unconscious dragging her limp body back inside.

He then confronts his wife about her and Murata. Before his wife even gets a chance to explain herself, he beats her to the ground and lays on top of her demanding the truth. In this moment, the truth is finally revealed as to just how much she loathes him and his daughter. If this charade of a family unit wasn’t already fractured, it’s now completely obliterated. This leads to Shamoto forcibly raping her making her yet again the passive victim. Gone is the weak spineless little boy and in his place is an assertive albeit completely broken man. Maybe, just maybe if he had been a little more assertive in the first place then all of this could have been avoided.

Cold Fish serves as much more than just a true-murder film. It is both an intense study of the dysfunctional family unit and a seemingly scathing indictment of the harsh realities that come hand-in-hand with societal pressures in a mostly conformist society. Sion Sono has said about it that he wanted to depict “a sense of total hopelessness” that he felt was lacking in Japanese cinema. To a large extent, I believe he and his screenwriter Yoshiki Takahashi have achieved just that and a little bit more.

But outside of the barbaric and prevailing sense of nihilism that the film is soaked in, what still really fascinates me to this day is its seemingly harsh critique of societal pressures in general. One thing is for certain though, regardless of gender, no one comes out of this film for the better. There is a prevailing nihilism about all of its characters in general that I quite appreciate.

Sure, Shamoto eventually grows a backbone of sorts, but it comes at the cost of his own sanity. Meanwhile, Mitsuko doesn’t really seem to learn anything as even in her fathers death she still shows him nothing but disrespect and contempt.

All Shamoto ever wanted was the perfect model family. And in the end, he got nothing. Leading to his final words; “life is pain.” Sometimes, it truly is just a sick, sad, cruel little world we live in with no reason or rhyme.


-Daniel M

Read More

[Feature] - Let the Right One In (Or A Meditation On The Nature Of Love)

Let’s jump way back to 2009. It was another day stuck behind my desk in a dreary office pushing paperwork through the system. It was a bright warm March day outside and there I was stuck in a cold office dreaming of escape. My plan for that weekend was to go and see the then-newly released film adaptation of Let the Right One In. At that point in time, I had become obsessed with the novel it was based on. The skeptic inside of me didn’t truly believe any film version could do the novel full justice, but I still knew that I had to see it based on my newfound love of the novel alone.

So it was release day of the film and here I was stuck in my office bored out of my mind. Much like a vampire's unrelenting thirst, I knew I needed my fix and I needed it right then and there. I couldn’t stand to sit at that desk for another second knowing that the film was playing for audiences. I had to get out and I had to go and see this film. So I tabbed over to the website of the one art-house cinema in Sydney that was playing it and looked up session times.

There were only three sessions that day and the next session was two hours away. I knew I couldn’t wait any longer. I picked up my office phone, dialed my boss's extension and feigned a severe stomach cramp. Thankfully my boss bought into it and let me “go home.” Yeah, right! I wasn’t going home. I was hopping on the next train into Sydney to enjoy my day off! Being that I worked only 10 minutes away from Sydney, I hopped a train and made a mad dash to Oxford Street and bought my ticket.

I sat in my seat with my skeptic glasses on as I truly didn’t believe they could capture what it was that made the novel so riveting. The lights dimmed, the curtains drew back and the film began. Two hours later and I felt that ecstatic sigh of relief wash over me. Even with its many omissions, the film still managed to capture the raw bloody heart of the piece. It also managed to win me over in the exact same way the novel already had. It was a moment of pure ecstatic bliss for me.

Ever since that fateful day, I’ve lost count as to how many times I’ve re-watched it. I’ve watched it with English Subs, I’ve watched it without English Subs. Hell, I’ve even watched it with the Japanese dub as an exercise when learning Japanese. It is something of a yearly tradition for me as the film now just plays on an eternal loop somewhere in the back of my mind.

Adapted for the screen by the original author John Ajvide Lindqvist, the film wisely strips down some of the novel's more lurid pulpy detours and finds the raw beating heart of the piece. That being the story of Oskar and Eli. Two outsiders who find solace and comfort in one another.

Oskar (Kare Hedebrant) is very much an outsider and is incapable of fitting in. He lives with his divorced mother in an apartment complex just outside of Blackeberg - a blue collar suburb in Sweden. His mother is overworked, underpaid and trying to do her best as a single parent. He spends the occasional weekend with his father out in the countryside where they seemingly have a good relationship. He has delicate and almost effeminate features which makes him an obvious target for the bullies at school. An ongoing bullying that has clearly resulted in a total loss of self esteem.

In his spare time, he dreams of grizzly revenge upon his tormentors. He does so by brandishing a carving knife and stabbing away feverishly at a tree outside of his apartment complex pretending as if it were the bullies in question. He also keeps a scrapbook of newspaper articles regarding local murder cases. To say he is off-kilter is to say the least.

One cold winter's night while looking out of his bedroom window yearning for a change, he notices the arrival of strange new neighbors. A 12 year old girl named Eli (Lina Leandersson) and a balding man in his late 40s named Hakan - presumably her father. Little is known about the pair other than they travel light and keep to themselves. But then a mysterious string of murders rocks the suburbs of Blackeberg as Eli’s presence fractures the small community.

Let the Right One In serves a few different readings. On the one hand, it’s a dark coming of age story. Another reading of the film could be that it’s the story of how a vampire finds and manipulates a Renfield-like figure to serve them. Another analysis could describe it as a social commentary on how the vampire's presence shines a light on the entire community’s inherent loneliness. There is also the outside theory that Eli doesn’t exist at all and she is just a manifestation of Oskar’s pent up rage.

All of which are perfectly applicable readings that may hold some weight when analyzing the film. For the sake of not going overboard, the two readings I am choosing to adhere to today are the Renfield theory and the nature of love as is presented in the film. At its heart, I believe Let the Right One In is a meditation on the nature of love presented under the guise of a horror film.

In many ways, Sweden is perhaps the perfect backdrop for a vampire film. It’s cold, desolate and it gets nice and dark fairly early with the sun setting somewhere around 3pm in the afternoon. What better environment for a vampire to dwell in? Hoyte Van Hoytema’s cinematography perfectly captures this as the film rarely sees daylight. Although the interesting thing about it is the manner in which it tends to overexpose its artificial lighting.

Most horror films tend to play with shadow and light for mood. Yet Let the Right One In plays out its horror under the exposure of mostly exterior street lighting that bounces off the pure white snow blanketing the ground. It’s an interesting contrast in regards to how most horror films play as here the scenes of violence tend to be exposed out in the public eye for all to see. Hoyte Van Hoytema would go on to refer to this method of lighting as ‘Spray Lighting.’ It’s as if you could capture dull electrical light in a can and spray it like a can of hairspray.

Also, the film's use of dialog is very sparse and almost poetic. Alfredson has said that he almost wanted it to play as if it were a silent film. The entire film is remarkably restrained in its presentation. It never once force feeds you its information and instead gives a slow steady rhythm allowing you just enough breathing room to contemplate its events as they transpire.

Much the same as Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy stripped the glamour out of spying, so too does Alfredson strip the glamour out of vampirism. Vampirism in this film is treated as nothing more than a ravaging illness. Eli’s need for blood is like that of a disease. Early on in the film, we see a hungry Eli. Her eyes are wide, pupils dilated, her skin malnourished. Her clothes are clearly scavenged from Charity Bins. In their first meeting, Oskar notes that she smells bad. A noteworthy observation considering later on after she has fed she specifically asks him “do I smell better?” It quickly brings to mind the parallels of a drug addict. Only Eli’s drug of choice is one she desperately needs in order to survive another night.

Initially Eli chooses not to do her own bidding for the shred of humanity she clings onto. We glimpse this humanity in the one instance where she is forced to kill. After she has fed, she buries her head into the victim's chest implying her deep seeded guilt. Instead, she sends out Hakan to do her bidding. The only problem being is he’s a terrible killer. When I say terrible, he is almost the Mr. Bean of serial killers in his ineptitude! Take his first victim in the film as an example. He literally traps and kills his victims in a highly exposed public area and is ultimately interrupted by two locals walking their dog.

It implies one of two things. That he has maybe not been doing this for very long or he is tired and weathered. The biggest change between the novel and film is the removal of Eli and Hakan’s backstories. In the novel, it is explained in vivid detail that Hakan is actually a pedophile and has been freshly acquired by Eli to do her bidding in exchange for certain services. The film wisely drops this as Tomas Alfredson stated that he didn’t feel he could tell that story without it overshadowing the core story between Oskar and Eli.

It’s a wise choice that works in the film's favor as it gives breathing room for the audience to interpret the true nature of their relationship. Perhaps he is a Renfield-like figure that has been with her for a long time? Or perhaps he has been freshly acquired? Although, I do believe there is a shred of the pedophilia plot still in the film as is evident by one particular scene. A scene where Eli caresses Hakan’s face as he quivers at her touch. The reaction given by Hakan at the stroke of her hand is almost uncomfortably sexual in nature.

Eli first notices Oskar as he stabs away at the tree with his knife and takes an immediate interest in him. Initially she does try to guard herself as she warns him that they can’t be friends. But as the nights pass, the two find themselves anticipating each other's presence at the Jungle Gym in the small playground outside of the apartment complex. Soon after, the pair strike up a friendship over a shared love of puzzles and such.

After a savage whipping with a tree branch by his bullies, Oskar eventually confides in Eli about the bullying at school. Eli urges him to strike back. Strike back harder than he dares. This ignites a new strand of long lost self-confidence in Oskar as he applies for weight training the next day at school. Suggesting that all it really takes to get you out of your funk is the sign that someone else may actually care and believe in your potential. Eventually he does strike back earning him a brief moment of relief from their torment.

Their friendship continues to blossom and soon after they find themselves on a first date at a local fairground. Oskar buys a bag of mixed candy and offers her a sample. She politely declines knowing full well that she can’t eat them. Oskar feels that sting of rejection and drops his head to the ground. Noticing his hurt, she accepts the candy and eats it but can’t hold it down and runs off to throw up. Oskar follows her and spots her regurgitating to which he then embraces her. But curiously Eli does not return the hug; instead through a close up, we notice a pained confused expression on her face as she asks Oskar whether he likes her or not. Oskar confesses with a simple “yes” to which Eli drops the first vital clue as to her true nature. “Would you still like me even if I wasn’t a girl?”

Given Eli’s backstory from the novel is almost entirely omitted from the film. One could interpret this as a sly clue of her true nature. However, for those who have read the novel, it is the first clue to something else entirely regarding her gender. While the film never fully explores the nature of Eli’s true gender outside of one brief shot (if you’ve seen the film, you know which one I’m talking about), the line still holds weight nonetheless.

If a vampire ever were to be a real thing then would sex and gender really even matter to them anymore? Outside of physical pleasure or perhaps the practical means of seducing a victim, what good is sex and gender when you are physically incapable of reproducing? Moreover, what good is sex and gender when you’re physically trapped in the constraints of a 12 year old body?

With sex and gender out of the equation, what does love really boil down to? Isn't it true that most normal people seek companionship searching for the potential of reproducing and starting a family? Or do we seek companionship to relieve us from our loneliness? But what does this mean when that will never be an option to you as you are doomed to wander the Earth for an entirety by yourself?

Much has already been said about the Renfield reading of Oskar’s role in all of this. Given some of the clues presented throughout the film, it is certainly a viable reading. We know Oskar has a fascination with real-life murder cases, we know he has grizzly revenge fantasies. He certainly doesn’t seem to consider the value of life as he treats murder as if it were a sick game to some degree. It’s certainly not hard to look at him and see a potential Renfield in the making. Nor is it hard to see that part of his personality being the potential attraction for Eli. But for me, that theory has never really held much weight due to the in-practical nature of it.

Why would Eli recruit a 12 year old boy? Wouldn’t a 12 year old boy be more of a hindrance than a benefit as a whole? How can a 12 year old boy apply for an apartment to live in as they move town to town? How can a 12 year old boy physically take down a grown man or woman? In fact, why does she really need a Renfield when she has supernatural powers? These practicalities always kind of shattered that theory for me with any real thought. Oskar would pose much more of a threat to Eli’s safety than any benefit.

Based on the evidence thus far, I believe Eli’s acceptance of the candy is yet another sign of her going against her better judgment. Of course, you could say it could be a ploy to earn his trust, but given the body language conveyed in the scene, I do believe it's another moment of Eli giving in to her desire for companionship.

Later on in the film after Eli’s true nature has been exposed, we come to the one scene that is the lynchpin for the entire film. Let the Right One In takes its title from the Morrisey song ‘Let the Right One Slip In.’ It plays on the old vampire rule that a vampire can never enter a premise unless they are invited in. It also plays on the idea of letting the right person into your heart. After Oskar learns the truth about Eli, she shows up on his doorstep. Oskar beckons her to come in but Eli knows full well she can’t enter unless invited in. Oskar refuses to invite her in and instead taunts her to enter the apartment. With a reserved frown on her face knowing what is to come, she enters. Almost immediately blood starts to pour from every orifice of her frail body. Coming to his senses and seeing the tremendous amount of pain she is in, Oskar finally invites her in.

Elsewhere, the scene has been called a “haemophilia of rejection.” This leads to another intriguing aspect of the scene that further plays against the manipulation theory. There’s no real reason for Eli to tempt this fate. Even if she is manipulating him, there’s no real reason to tempt potential death. She knows at that moment that Oskar is angry at her. She knows full well what will happen upon entry and yet she still proceeds to give Oskar that power over her anyways by entering. I would argue this is a moment of Eli putting her complete trust in Oskar’s hands. It’s a pivotal moment in their budding relationship.

It’s Eli giving him the ultimate power; you can destroy me right here or let me live. It seems a massive leap of faith to take for someone who is just manipulating another person. Or you can look at it from the other perspective, that Eli is preying on Oskar’s vulnerability. Certainly viable but I can’t think of anything more pivotal to building trust with another person than putting your entire existence in their hands. Or maybe I’m just a hopeless romantic?

Eli then lays it all out as honestly as she can for him regarding her true nature. She confronts Oskar on his desire to kill. Oskar defensively refutes that he “doesn’t kill”, but she insists that he would like to kill if he could. She then tells him “I do it because I have to.” She then asks him to “Be me...for a little while.”

While it's easy to interpret this as her directly asking him to do her bidding I feel that there is another layer to this request. I don’t believe she’s asking him to do her bidding. Rather she is making a plea to his humanity and asking him to understand that this isn’t a game for her. That killing is a matter of life and death for her. In this scene, we catch a brief glimpse of an elderly Eli; it’s quite literally a ‘blink and you will miss it’ moment.

Another thing the film never really explains is Eli’s mental capacity. Is she a child trapped in a permanent state of Arrested Development? Or is she an adult trapped in a child's body? Unlike Claudia from Interview with the Vampire, whom clearly develops the mind of a full grown woman but is trapped in a little girl's body, Eli’s predicament is uncertain in this rendition. Although, there is a sly brief visual clue that shows Eli sleeping in a bathtub as she clings onto a Teddy Bear. Perhaps a sign that there is still a child-like nature to Eli. It’s hard to say as the film never provides a flat out answer.

However I do believe this scene in particular further highlights a moment of Eli being completely and utterly honest with Oskar by simply asking him to fully understand her plight for what it is. This is the point where they are beyond the lies in their friendship and have come to fully recognize one another for their true nature.

As the unexplained murders continue through the suburb of Blackeberg, we come to meet the other residents of the community. Most notably the small gang of drunkards who hang out at the local Chinese Restaurant led by Lacke (Peter Carlberg). Lacke is a Blue Collar schlub. Beaten down by life, he wallows in self pity. He seems to care more for his best friend Jocke then he does for his attentive and caring girlfriend Virginia (Ika Nord). In an early scene, he notices Hakan dining at the restaurant by himself and tries to befriend him in hope that he will pay for the group's drinks, only to be rejected. Lacke is in many ways a potential foretelling of the fate that may be in store for Oskar should he stay in Blackeberg.

Unfortunately for Lacke, Eli’s thirst can only be held at bay for so long and one of her victims just so happens to be his best friend. After Hakan fails at his one job, Eli takes it upon herself to do the deed. As Jocke walks home from the Chinese Restaurant, Eli preys on his good natured vulnerability posing as an injured child and kills him before drinking his blood. However, this event is witnessed by a Cat Loving Recluse named Gosta from his overlooking apartment.

Gosta informs Locke what happened; however, by the time the gang arrives at the scene of the crime, the body has already been removed and dumped in a local river by Hakan. Thus Eli’s presence shatters this small group of friends as Lacke becomes increasingly obsessed with finding and hunting down the person who killed him. Eli’s presence once again shines the light on their loneliness.

With Hakan now deceased after meeting an unrelated tragic end and Lacke hot on her tail, Eli is put in a position of vulnerability. Eventually a broken Lacke, who has now lost everything that is dear to him including Virginia thanks to Eli, tracks her down and conspires to kill her. He finds her in the darkened bathroom, completely vulnerable, sleeping in the bathtub while hugging her teddy bear. Unbeknownst to Lacke, Oskar is sleeping in the other room and happens to hear him enter the apartment.

Armed with his knife, Oskar is put in a moment of kill or watch as his best friend is killed. The fact that he approaches Lacke as his back is turned is certainly telling of the ends he is willing to go to in order to protect her. Fate intervenes as Oskar’s startled cry of shock awakens Eli. Eli leaps up and lunges at Lacke’s throat as Oskar shuts the door and walks back to the kitchen. The camera tracks outward focused on the closed door. Throughout the entire film, we never actually get to see Eli's true nature up close in any of her kills as the camera always remains at a distance.

We then cut back to Oskar who is now visibly shaken at the sounds of Eli killing Lacke. It is here where he is finally confronted with the reality of death. That it’s not just all fun and games like he fantasizes about and that there is an actual gravitas to killing. It is here that perhaps he finally comes to understand the true burden of Eli’s predicament having been faced with it. Afterwards, a blood soaked Eli returns to the kitchen and finally returns the hug from their first date before finally giving him a tender bloody kiss in a moment that finally pits them as equals.

Much like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is less a spy film and more a meditation on lonely men so too is Let the Right One In less a horror film and more so a meditation on the nature of love. It's the age of the two kids that make these questions all the more fascinating. They're right on the cusp of verging sexuality and while they are aware of that, they are still just inexperienced kids.

For Oskar, it could be seen that he mostly has a puppy dog crush on Eli. It makes perfect sense seeing that she is the first one to grant him affection in this manner. For Eli, maybe she is aware and maybe she is using his attraction to her advantage...or maybe she's just another lonely soul who yearns to connect with someone she sees to be an equal? It removes the sexuality and seduction of the vampire almost entirely and instead tells a vampire story that is on the awkward and painful cusp of puberty. It questions the nature of love in a way that I really haven’t seen from any other vampire film before it and that is what remains entirely fascinating to me.

That and I think this film is an interesting depiction of loneliness and how Eli's presence shines the light on everyone's almost child-like loneliness. That aspect of it actually reminds me a little of George Romero's vampire film Martin and how Martin's presence kind of shines the light on the decaying community around him. The same could be said of Eli as her presence helps to further the decay of a small community. But as her presence destroys all around her, there is but one who is ultimately saved in his own right.

The irony being that the real horror of Let the Right One In comes more so from the humans than it does Eli herself. The savagery of Oskar's bullies is perhaps far more inhumane than anything Eli is forced to do simply because its born out of a choice to be cruel rather than a necessity. Or perhaps the real horror comes from Oskar’s final choice. To leave the shackles of a society to which he will never fit into and join Eli as he fully embraces the monster blossoming within. Depending on your moral stance; it could be seen as a happy or tragic ending and that’s the beauty of it. But one thing is for certain in my mind, come the end, I do believe Eli grows to regard Oskar as her equal. Something that she could never do for the likes of Hakan or any other companion she may have had along the way.

The film has stayed with me ever since that first screening and has continued to linger on in my mind ever since. This film came at just the right time for me. At a time when I was growing jaded by the horror genre, this film came into my life with its many questions and reignited my passion for the genre and sub genre as a whole. It’s a film that defies the genre and transcends into something more than just horror or drama. It’s quite an amazing little film that still holds the same power over me that it did all those years ago. All I can say is thank goodness I feigned illness to get out of work that day. Because I got something very special in return.


-Daniel M

Read More

[Feature] - Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (or that lonely Spy film)

If you’ve ever had the pleasure of seeing Tomas Alfredson’s prior film Let the Right One In then it should become quickly apparent that Alfredson is a filmmaker who likes to explore the idea of loneliness. His follow up and first English language film Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is entirely evident of this as the one common thread all of its characters share is an inherent loneliness.

Based on the novel by John Le Carre, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy has three central themes at its core. Loneliness, loyalty and betrayal. Despite being set during the Cold War, it has less interest in dissecting the politics of its time period and is far more concerned with exploring the humanity of its central characters.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is your basic ‘whodunit?’ Set in the early 70s at the height of the Cold War, Chief Commanding Officer “Control” (John Hurt) has become increasingly paranoid that Moscow has tapped an insider at the highest ranks of the British Office of Intelligence (the MI-6.)

“Control” sends one of his finest agents, Jim Prudeaux (Mark Strong), to Budapest in order to recruit a Russian Turncoat. However, the mission ends in a double cross as Jim is shot and kidnapped. With egg on their faces, “Control” is forced to retire from his position at the head of MI-6. With him he takes his right hand man George Smiley (Gary Oldman). It's clear that Smiley had no intentions of early retirement, but nonetheless, he still remains loyal to “Control” and agrees to his terms of dismissal.

Through an opening credit montage, Alfredson gives us almost everything we need to know about Smiley in less than 4 minutes. His marriage is on the rocks as his wife has recently left him. He also struggles with early retirement and is entirely lost trying to fill in his days. It's at home where he is most vulnerable. And he has a keen observant clinical eye that never fails to miss the finer details. Through this montage, we also learn that “Control” has since passed on.

Meanwhile, back at MI-6, the snivelling Percy Alleline (Toby Jones) and his right-hand man Roy Bland (Ciarán Hinds) have seized control. Out with the old and in with the new as they seek to forcefully inherit what they see as being a new era. Their first order is to establish a better working relationship with the United States. They plan to do this through a new Russian Turncoat of their own who is willing to provide vital information. The operation becomes known as Operation Witchcraft.

One of the foot soldiers, Field Agent Ricky Tarr (Tom Hardy), warns Civil Servant Oliver Lacon that there is a mole at the top of the Circus. Knowing that “Control” had the same theory, Lacon recruits Smiley to look into the matter as an outside consultant. As Lacon says to Smiley; “it’s your generation, George. Your legacy.” Aided by Tarr’s boss Peter Guilliam (Benedict Cumberbatch) and Special Branch Officer Mendel, Smiley continues on from where “Control” left off and investigates the matter at hand.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy has been rightfully called the Anti-Bond and for good measure. It removes all of the glamour of being a spy and instead presents the cold methodical and clinical world of espionage as it actually is. There are no car chases or shoot-outs. The action in this film comes from a simple raised eyebrow or an inflection of vocal tone implying mistrust. The characters are constantly looking over their shoulders, checking their exits and guarding every inch of their personal lives.

Its set design reeks of stained cigarettes. It’s depiction of London is cramped, almost filthy and borderline ugly. The offices of MI-6 feature individual closed off soundproofed pods conveying a further sense of heightened claustrophobia. The cold dreary European landscapes provide a general sense of malaise. The stifling sense of dread is very well conveyed by cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema.

The film follows Smiley’s keen eye as we tag along on his investigation meeting the various players at hand. Gary Oldman is terrifically restrained here. Dialling the theatrics way down and creating a chameleon of a character. He is entirely calm and never once loses his cool. Like most loners, he is highly observant as his piercing eyes never flinch. A workaholic as is frequently noted by his lack of sleep. He also possesses perhaps just a slight touch of a sadistic edge beneath the surface. He is a slave to the details. He doesn’t need outright physical violence to get what he needs out of his suspects. His calm piercing eyes do that job just the same.

An example of his methods are displayed in an early scene in the film where Smiley, Guilliam and Mendel are driving along in a car. Smiley sits in the back seat as a fly buzzes around the interior of the car. Guilliam tries to bat it away out of annoyance. Mendel remains unphased. Smiley just calmly observes the fly before winding down the window and letting it fly out of the car. It’s a terrific little moment that tells us everything we need to know about Smiley.

Like all of us though, Smiley also has his weaknesses. Most notably his wife. The duplicitous nature of his job has clearly led to the fracturing of his marriage as the passion he has for the job seemingly is not being replicated in his marriage. Leading his wife astray and into the arms of other men. His wife's betrayal clearly hurts him, but still, he retains his cool and pushes forward with the job at hand.

As Smiley interviews Ricky Tarr, we learn that Tarr was on operation in Istanbul watching over a potential defector. However the defector in question is far from a delegate so Tarr gives up on him. However his battered wife catches Tarr’s attention. His wife Irania (Svetlana Khodchenkova) also happens to be a Soviet Agent and has the mother load of all intel involving the identity of the mole and what the Russians are actually conspiring. After being charmed and seduced by Tarr, she agrees to trade her intel in favor of a new life in the West.

Tarr sends word of this back to MI-6, but his word is intercepted by the mole. Thus Irania is kidnapped by the Russian Secret Service. Despite Tarr’s claims of Irania not being his type, it’s clear that he has actually fallen in love with her and feels great guilt about the predicament he has put her in. Later on in the film when being convinced to take part in the final sting to catch the mole, Tarr outright says directly to Smiley; “I want her traded back unharmed. I want a family, I don't want to end up like you lot.”

Indicating that Tarr not only might be one of the best of these men, but also has enough self-awareness to realize the toll the Circus takes on them all. Unfortunately for Tarr, he doesn’t know the sad truth that Irania has already been murdered. Leading to one of Smiley’s more sadistic moments in offering a false promise of “I’ll do my best.”

Smiley’s would-be new protege Peter Guilliam also has his own personal troubles. Our first impressions of Peter are perhaps that of a glamor boy. He wears fine suits, has well groomed hair, drives a Mercedes and is seemingly popular among the ladies of the MI-6 offices. As the investigation intensifies, Smiley warns Guilliam that if he has any personal matters to attend to then he should deal with them now rather than later. This leads to a brief scene where it is revealed that Guilliam is actually a closested gay man.

But again, his loyalty to the Circus forces Guilliam’s hand to break up with his lover for both fear of his own reputation within the circus and his lover's safety. Resulting in a rather poignant moment of Guilliam breaking down into tears as he sacrifices a part of his personal life for the service.

It is also eventually revealed that Jim Pridueax is in fact alive and has been traded back by the Russians. Now working as a School Teacher living out of his small Caravan, he becomes the center of attention to a young rotund school boy by the name of Bill Roach. Young Bill is very much an attentive and observant loner. Perhaps a potential candidate for a role as a future agent in the Circus. Noticing these qualities in Bill and perhaps being reminded of his old buddy Bill Hayden (Colin Firth) from the Circus, Jim takes a liking to Bill and the two strike up a friendship of sorts.

Speaking of Bill Hayden, I guess we have to go into spoiler mode here. As the investigation winds down, it is revealed that Bill Hayden is the mole. Who is Bill Hayden? First impressions of Hayden present him as a cool and suave ladies man. In his first scene with Guilliam, he notes that he came downstairs specifically to get a glimpse of the new Blonde. He’s very charming to boot but also a slithering snake in the grass. At the behest of the Russians, he seduces Smiley’s wife in order to create a blind spot. It seems he has no real loyalty to anyone other than himself based on what we get to know about him.

Throughout the film, there are many flashbacks to a lively Christmas Party. What at first seems a jovial way to show happier times for these men actually in turn reveals a great deal about Hayden himself. It’s here we see Smiley’s first hints of uncertainty towards Hayden. It’s also here where we learn that Hayden has seduced Smiley’s wife.

Later on in the bittersweet denouement (set to a wonderful rendition of La Mer by Julio Igleias) we also learn that Hayden and Pridueax may have potentially had something of a sexual relationship. As Hayden slithers into the room with a wine glass in his hand looking for someone to toast with, from across the room he spots Prideaux in the corner huddled by himself in deep thought.

The two notice each other and their eyes meet as Prideaux sits up straight and smiles at Hayden only for Hayden to return the smile. Then the smile turns to perhaps a brief acknowledgment on Prideaux’s behalf that deep down he knows the truth that he doesn’t want to believe. In these few seconds, both actors take us through a whirlwind of emotions all conveyed solely through body language. It is nothing short of wonderful film making from all involved.

This theory is further backed up by Hayden’s final confession to Smiley where he admits to having both a female and male lover almost confirming that Hayden is indeed bisexual. Which is only fitting considering the double life he is leading. Based on that one shared moment, it can be theorized that Hayden seduced Pridueax and perhaps the two were lovers at one point in time. Upon reveal of Hayden’s betrayal, Prideuax alienates himself from young Bill Roach telling him to bugger off and to just join in with the other boys. A final warning to not wind up like him and his lot.

In many ways, Tomas Alfredson was the perfect choice of Director to bring Tinker Tailor to the big screen. This is a story of highly observant loners crumbling at the seams under the pressure of the job and who better to Direct that than a loner himself? Just as the film is about lonely observers, so too is it shot with an observant perfectionist eye. Alfredson’s Direction is nothing short of immaculate. It's completely restrained subtle film making at its finest. Giving just us enough detail without overfeeding us.

While fans of the book have criticized Alfredson and his screenwriters Peter Straughan and Bridget O’Connor for the many omissions and changes made, I can only applaud them. Per John Le Carre's request, they didn’t just simply remake the classic BBC miniseries or retell the book word for word. Instead they have crafted something brand new that is still highly faithful to the core of it.

The political intrigue is still here for those looking for it. There is a wonderful monologue delivered by Gary Oldman that is the centerpiece of the film. It’s a monologue that is filled with grief over the moral ambiguity that underpins the entire Cold War. However, as much as the film is a study on masculinity, betrayal, legacy and loyalty. The core of it all comes right back down to loneliness and self deception. These men are profoundly lonely. Once idealistic at heart but now battered and worn down by the job.

“Control” becomes consumed by his paranoia and unresting suspicion as he dies in his bed alone surrounded only by his paperwork. Guilliam sacrifices his own desires for fear of the ramifications it may bring upon him. Tarr is left standing in the cold rain waiting for a chance at happiness that will never come. Prideuax will most likely continue to lock himself away in his caravan, further alienating himself from the outside world as he holds onto that pain. These men are all breed of the same kilt

Ironically enough, it’s perhaps the Mole himself who just may be the only one being true to himself. As is noted with Hayden’s final words to Smiley; “I’m someone who has made his mark.”

As for Smiley? Smiley may be able to forgive his wife in the end, but for how long will their harmony last until it all goes awry again? Because how can anyone possibly be loyal to something when they can’t even be true to themselves?

-Daniel M

Read More

[Feature] - Art School Confidential - "In order to be a great artist, you simply have to BE a Great Artist"

“In order to be a great artist, you simply have to BE a Great Artist. There’s nothing to learn.” Words of wisdom spoken by an overconfident graduate from the fictional Strathmore School of Art. But despite his dripping vitriolic delivery, these are perhaps the most profound words uttered in Art School Confidential.

You can go to school to learn a craft in order to fulfill any ordinary blue collar job. But can you really learn to be a great artist simply by going to a School of Arts? Perhaps you can learn technique and form. Or you can learn to dissect the works of the great “dead white men” that came before you. Perhaps there is even life experience to be found on the campus of such an academy.

But can true originality really be taught? In my mind, the answer is a resounding No. Originality comes from within. It has to be earned through repetition and practice. It’s earned through life experiences and finding your own voice through said experiences. Rendering Art School to be a mostly pointless endeavor.

So too is this belief seemingly held by Writer Daniel Clowes and Director Terry Zwigoff as they have crafted what is perhaps the most scathingly accurate satire of Art School ever committed to celluloid. Welcome to Strathmore School of Arts. Where originality goes to die. Both literally and figuratively.

Art School Confidential is told through the eyes of Jerome Platz (Max Minghella). Ever since childhood, he has shown a natural passion for art. Of course, this made him a target for school yard bullies. Nonetheless, he endured the painful years of high school with his firm belief that he will become the next Picasso. Though on closer inspection, his artwork seems to have very little in common with his idol.

His aspirations to become the greatest artist of the 21st century are noble if not a little too idealistic. But like any young man who was bullied by brutes and overlooked by the girls in his high school, he too has an ulterior motive of wanting to get laid by beautiful art models. Perhaps this is really what he means when he claims to want to become the next Picasso.

Thus begins his term at Strathmore School of Arts. A run down unmaintained campus that appears to be located in a questionable neighborhood. Everyone at Strathmore is an instantly recognizable stereotype of some form. First we have Jerome’s roommates; closeted gay fashion major Matthew (Nick Swanson) and the Tarantino-wannabe film student Vince (Ethan Suplee).

Things aren’t much better in class either as the cynical and self-aware Bardo (Joel David Moore) plays tour guide for Jerome pointing out the various cliches. Cliches ranging from the Holy vegan, the boring blowhard, the angry lesbian, the Mom who is discovering her artistic talent now that her last child has left the nest and of course, the kiss-ass of the class. How does Bardo know all of this? Well, he too is a cliche; that being the insecure guy who changes course every semester because he believes he has no real talent. “So who am I?” asks Jerome to no answer as Bardo has yet to figure him out.

As for his teachers? His Painting Professor Sandiford (John Malkovich) hides his contempt through a thin veneer of fake-charm. His Sculpting Professor Okamura (Jack Ong) just flat out dismisses his student as if they didn't exist. And his Art History Teacher (Anjelica Houston) may still have an ounce of passion left within her if not for the barrage of boring young blowhards of her class debating racial and sexual politics instead of just focusing on the Art itself.

Each of them are kind of failures in their own right so naturally they share a burning contempt for the young idealistic aspirational fools in front of them. Most notably Sandiford, whose one claim to fame is painting Triangles. He proudly boasts to Jerome that he was one of the first. Although clearly his work has never resulted in the way of financial security and thus he has to teach to make a living. As Sandiford states in Jerome's first class; "Only 1 out of 100 of you will ever make a living as an Artist." Clearly Sandiford was not that 1 out of 100. These words linger over the remainder of the film as they become the sole drive for Jerome to break out of the pack.

Eventually we come to meet the real star of the film. A former Strathmore Student who has long since become an embittered alcoholic wreck named Jimmy (Jim Broadbent). A man who perhaps once embodied that same idealistic spirit as the freshmen of Strathford now festering in his own deep cynicism. He too has become a jaded by-product of the Art World. He gladly takes the piss out of Jerome’s idol Picasso for never having so much as an original thought before launching into a drunken tirade. A tirade which compares the art world to that of prostitution as he suggest that Jerome become a good cock-sucker to get ahead. Much like the teachers, he serves as an eerie foreshadow for what may become of the freshmen of Strathmore.

Beyond the failed sexual escapades of Jerome and the many classroom scenes highlighting the absurdity of both students and professors, the plot eventually begins to reveal itself. Jerome grows infatuated with a beautiful young model named Audrey (Sophia Myles). However, Audrey has eyes for the new guy Jonah (Matt Keeslar); a preppy athletic jock type who looks so entirely out of place in his surroundings. He also just happens to be an undercover cop who is investigating a string of murders by strangulation on campus. However, much to Jonah’s surprise, the entire campus becomes absolutely enamored with his outsider art. Which is really just simplistic paintings of cars and trucks -- the kind of simple things a guy like Jonah would like in life.

As Jonah becomes the center of attention amongst both students and teachers alike, Jerome finds himself slipping further and further into a pit of despair as his work goes unnoticed. Jerome may have a natural talent for painting in general, but his work doesn’t really do much to stand out amongst the pack.

With all of this said, we have to talk about a certain subject. Much has already been said about Jerome’s entitlement in this film. It’s no secret that the character shares a striking similarity to that of Elliot Rodgers in both appearance and mentality at points. Elliot Rodgers being the notoriously infamous perpetrator of the 2014 Isla Vista killings where he killed 6 people.

Rodgers' motivation was that he wanted to punish the women who had ignored him as he felt a certain entitlement to them. Now, obviously this comparison is purely coincidental as Art School Confidential was shot in 2005...a mere 9 years before these killings took place. But it is difficult to ignore the comparisons in their shared mentality as Jerome wallows in his self despair.

Yes, Jerome has a certain amount of entitlement about him. His despair amplifies the more he continues to be overlooked. Most of this likely comes from the characters' childhood. Being overlooked and bullied clearly had a toll on him. Jerome strikes me as someone who lived with the hope that life beyond high school would be different for him. Only to find the harsh reality that blew the lid off all of his great expectations. That he simply went from being a fish in a pond to being a fish in the bigger sea.

His despair really comes from his need to be noticed and acknowledged. Perhaps he has a certain narcissistic quality about him. He so desperately wants to be seen as a great artist for he believes that this will bring him a certain amount of power and respect from the opposite sex. But now that he is finally out in the real world and on his own, those great ideals shatter to pieces. So much so that even Bardo eventually labels him as the “Class Douchebag.”

While Jerome doesn’t quite follow in the path of Rodgers, it is clear his character is certainly being tested to its breaking point. As his internal bitterness grows, he steadily earns the trust and maybe even begrudging respect of Jimmy. Jimmy eventually reveals to Jerome that he is the Strathmore Strangler. Then proceeds to show Jerome his personal collection of paintings. All of which are graphic re-creations of the murders themselves. Pasted atop the painting are the personal items he has collected from the deceased. Jerome reacts with a total indifference to this revelation.

As Jonah’s star increases in the art world, Jerome becomes increasingly desperate and steals Jimmy’s paintings claiming them to be his own. While these bold new paintings still fail to capture the eyes of his Professors, they do capture the attention of Jonah leaving Jerome to become the prime suspect. Unfortunately, Jimmy meets his maker as his apartment burns down after a drunken stupor.

Eventually Jerome is arrested on suspicion of murder and Jonah is exposed as the fraud he is. Which immediately earns him the scorn of the Art Community and thus the spotlight is now reverted back to Jerome as he becomes the new hero on campus. Because if there is one thing that earns the collective hate of all liberal Arts College Students, it could only be the cops. Realizing the opportunity staring him in the face, Jerome confesses to the murders and claims the art as his own. As such, he quickly becomes the talk of the art world. Even more than that, he finally earns the heart of the girl but to what ends?

Barring Jimmy, the one consistent throughout the film is that everyone in it is a total fraud. The teachers are frauds. The students are frauds. Audrey is a fraud who flings from relationship to relationship like it was a symbol of status. Jonah is clearly a fraud in every way as he plays the undercover role. And so too does Jerome become a fraud as he steals artwork and a claim to notoriety that isn’t rightfully his.

The only true original artist in the movie is the belligerent jaded drunk Jimmy. Yes, his artwork is dubious and morally bankrupt on one level, but at the same time, there is no denying the striking and eye-catching appeal of his art. It could be said that in his jaded and psychotic worldview that he’s the only character here that might have a true original thought or vision in mind.

Perhaps becoming another Jimmy was always the destined path for Jerome. It can be argued that their artwork does share a similar style at a base level. They also share certain sensibilities in their seething contempt towards humanity. At one point, Jimmy asks Jerome "Do you wanna be an artist or an aficionado?" And this is where their paths ultimately split. Jerome doesn't reach the status of artist on his own two feet and instead has become just as fraudulent as everyone else around him in the art community. He has become the very thing that Jimmy warned him about in their first meeting.

Upon initial release, the murder subplot was criticized heavily by critics and audiences alike. But for my money, the murder subplot is absolutely essential to the film and its overall point. Art School Confidential is a scathing jet black satire of the Art World and its tendency to lack objective standards. Clowes and Zwigoff clearly have an absolute disdain for Art School in general and it shows on screen as the film drips with its seething discontent. This subplot is perfectly integrated, or designed, to fit right in. Something Jerome finds painfully difficult to do.

They call the killer the Strathmore Strangler for a reason. Because Strathmore is where creativity and originality goes to die, or literally be strangled to death. Along with all the would be artists. Most of whom are only interested in art simply for money. Whereas Jerome is ultimately condemned by his love of a beautiful girl just as much as he is by his passion for art. The murder subplot is absolutely essential to the satire/parody at hand and as such, Art School Confidential remains a severely underrated and overlooked gem of scathing satire at its finest.

So...what does it take to be a great artist? You simply have to BE a great artist. And if you can’t do that? Then you can always maybe go to Art School and become just another fraud in the pile.

-Daniel M

Read More