THE LITTLE STRANGER

Domhnall Gleeson     Ruth Wilson     Will Poulter     Charlotte Rampling

     Based on Sarah Waters’ gothic novel, The Little Stranger movie preserves the “creepiness” attendant on an old, crumbling house, mysterious sounds and goings on, periodic tragedies, and an eccentric family, once wealthy, trying to hang on as long as possible.  Whereas the young doctor who’s called for medical treatment now and then appears to be a sensible, dedicated physician (and narrator for the story), he becomes strangely attached to the family and the house, which actually dates back to the time when he was a child and his mother served as a maid at “Hundreds Hall.”

     All this is a perfect set-up for a horror movie, on which Lucinda Coxon has based her screenplay, and Lenny Abrahamson has directed.  But in addition to the mysteriousness, the author of the novel had social issues in mind, wanting to show a picture of what began to happen to the idea of class post WWI and the decline of wealthy estates.  We see, then, the brilliant descriptions of the narrator’s impressions of the mansion when he was the child of a maid visiting on a holiday.  As a grown-up physician attending to the inhabitants of the mansion years later, he develops a strange attraction to them.  Clearly, he is in touch with the young child’s aspirations to belong in such a place, but in his grandiosity, he is also convinced that he can help and protect them from any kind of threat, perhaps as assurance that he can belong.  He “over-identifies” with them.

     Probably also as a residue of the class system, the well-to-do family is ambivalent toward accepting Dr. Faraday wholeheartedly.  Some of his medical treatments are met with ambivalence, as are his attempts to woo the daughter of the matron.  Caroline (Wilson) is grateful for Dr. Faraday’s (Gleeson) attention and care, but going beyond the professional relationship is not a given for her.

     The author of the novel and the filmmakers have been clever in maintaining ambiguity and suspense, so that the reader/viewer has to observe, analyze, and guess what is going to transpire.  The haunting of the house is seductive—particularly if it’s related to the deceased child of the owner—but just as much is the pull toward a “psychological” explanation, as defined by Dr. Faraday and his colleagues.  If you find that the ending is ambiguous, you will not be alone.  So you get one character’s observation of “Something in this house hates us” and then, “This whole thing between us has never been real”, the former indicating a haunted house, and the latter being more of a psychological explanation.

     Domhnall Gleeson is up to his previous performance in Ex Machina in portraying a complex, somewhat naïve character.  Ruth Wilson, Will Poulter, and Charlotte Rampling are excellent in their supporting roles. Wilson expertly exhibits an ambivalent person who is perpetually torn between two positions.  Will Poulter is skilled in showing a dark character with layers of anger and resentment.  Charlotte Rampling always has just the right balance between being threatening toward others and being playful.  

     Working against the film is the pace, which many found slow, although since much attention was given to character development, I didn’t mind it. What did bother me was the darkness of the picture, which may be attributed to a dim bulb on the projector.  At any rate, many scenes were so dark it was difficult to see the action.   Understanding Irish accents is also a problem for the viewer at times.  

     In its favor, are numerous horrific scenarios, some of which come as a surprise and make you jump in your seat.  As mentioned, the additional commentary on social change and upheaval of the time (post WWI) describe the characteristic viewpoints of the wealthy and the common.  

A film that does justice to its genre of horror, drama, and mystery.

Grade:  B-                                    By Donna R. Copeland

mother!

Jennifer Lawrence     Javier Bardem     Ed Harris     Michelle Pfeiffer    

Brian Gleeson     Domhnall Gleeson     Kristen Wiig

      mother! could be seen as an allegory, one about an artist’s insatiable need for love and admiration.  The story begins in an ordinary way, with a young couple, played by Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem (they’re never given names, nor are any of the characters, making it seem even more like an allegory), living in what looks like an idyllic setting, a romantic old house belonging to his family they are refurbishing—well, actually she’s refurbishing it; he is a serious poet with strict boundaries around his writing room. 

     Home invasion #1 occurs when a man (Harris) suddenly appears at the door, and the poet invites him in, clearly delighting in what he says about the poet’s work.  Sometime after, another visitor arrives, and she turns out to be the man’s wife (Pfeiffer).  Ignoring his wife’s cautions, the poet magnanimously tells them they can stay as long as they please, also ignoring their sense of entitlement and bad behavior as guests.  After two sons of the guests (B Gleeson and D Gleeson) arrive, the family has a major dispute about a will that devolves into a trip to the hospital for one of them.

     After these guests leave, the poet and his wife have a period of blissful retreat, during which she gets pregnant and he finishes a major work.  She is so happy and hopeful, and he seems genuinely pleased.  Then home invasion #2 occurs after his book is published; hordes of fans, along with the publisher (Wiig) arrive to celebrate.  The mayhem is captured in many scenes to come.

     All the while, the house gives off creepy sounds and groans as if it were a character itself; blood stains appear and travel/transform with pungent meaning.  Occult signs and portents are everywhere.  Aronofsky seems to be making a major point about stardom and fandom, how they feed off one another, and how they can go out of control. 

     I’m a fan of Aranofsky, and like the idea of showing so graphically how artist and fan are so reciprocal, how the artist can be seduced at whatever cost, and how the mob mentality of fans seems to have no limits.  But in this film, I think he went over the top in prolonging the invasion scenes so that they take over the movie.  This gets tedious very quickly.  I did get a huge kick out of seeing the fans literally interpret the poet’s words to mean that when he says “share”, that entitles them to have what is his.

     Clearly, Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem pulled out all the stops in their performances.  And Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer, with their relatives (the Gleesons), are able to add a touch of the comedic to offset the horrors.  I wish Wiig’s appearances had been highlighted more, as she is so camera-grabbing in the brief times we see her.

Ah, yes, one of the successful artist’s challenges is managing fandom.

Grade:  C+                                    By Donna R. Copeland

THE REVENANT

Leonardo DiCaprio     Tom Hardy     Domhnall Gleason

          The Revenant is an apt title (for one who returns after death) because Hugh Glass (DiCaprio) gets wounds severe enough to kill him—several times.  He is mauled by a grizzly bear, is stitched up by someone whose father was a doctor, and before his wounds heal he is dragged, almost smothered to death, almost buried alive, shot at…well, you get it.  I was reminded of Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ when he pulls his heavy cross up a hill after he has been beaten so severely it’s difficult to see how he is alive, much less able to carry a cross.  When films go to this extreme, they lose me. 

       The one thing that compensates for this is the ever-stunning cinematography of Emmanuel Lubezki (Birdman, Gravity, To the Wonder, Tree of Life).  His camera revels in nature, and he enhances it with lighting, interesting contrasts and juxtapositions, and texture.  One of many examples in this film is when torches are being carried in a night scene with a red glow in the background, and stately, majestic trees towering through it all.  The trees—shown theme-like over and over—pick up on symbolic dialog spoken by Glass’s dead wife about how the branches of a tree might look like the tree is going to be felled by a strong wind, but when its roots are strong, it survives. 

        DiCaprio’s performance is a tour de force; he does not—is not able to—say much during the whole film, but is eloquent in his grunts and actions.  His eyes alone can convey the message.  The subtitle of the novel on which the film is based indicates that the story is about revenge, and the film highlights that aspect, giving it a noble connotation in that Glass has every reason to be vengeful.  And the actor is to be admired for enduring the brutal elements during the nine months of filming, which started in Canada, but was moved to Argentina when a warming trend melted the snow in Canada.

         Tom Hardy is adept in different kinds of roles, and here he plays the villain, and makes you grow to hate and disdain the character.  He is especially good at being glib but convincing when he argues about doing something that’s actually wrong.  He is one of the few actors who can keep the viewer mesmerized during a two-hour drive just talking on the phone! (in Locke). 

         I loved Innarritu’s Amores Perros, 21 Grams, Babel, and Birdman, but this film does not measure up to those accomplishments.

        My problem with The Revenant is with the script, both in its content and in its length.  Because of the illogical content, the movie is over long.  And it’s become a cliché in action movies when two adversaries both lose their weapons and then resort to hand-to-hand combat.  Ending a story like this in hand-to-hand combat with one of the players almost dead from his wounds weakens the conclusion.

The cinematography and DiCaprio’s performance are the main reasons to see The Revenant.

Grade:  B                                      By Donna R. Copeland